2010 (4) TMI 1188 - SC - Indian Laws

Writ petitions challenging the orders - grant of regular permits to private operators - claim of STUs in gross violation of 1990 scheme as modified in the year 1997 and the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act - HELD THAT - The power to cancel the Scheme or modify the Scheme rests with the State Government u/s 102 of the Act and the RTA and the Tribunal have committed a grave error in tampering with the Scheme as well as disturbing the ratio fixed by the Scheme by granting regular permits to the private sector from the quota earmarked for STUs. Once a scheme is approved and published, private operators have no right to claim regular permits to operate their vehicles in the notified area, route or portion thereof upsetting the ratio fixed. Since the scheme makes provision for partial exclusion, the private operators are not completely excluded, they may get regular permits on the notified route or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the scheme and within the quota earmarked for them. In our view same is the situation in respect of a case where an STU inspite of grant of permit does not operate the service or surrenders the permit granted or not utilizing the permit. In such a situation it should be deemed that no application for permit has been made by the STU and it is open to the RTA to grant temporary permit if there is a temporary need. By granting regular permits to the private operators RTA will be upsetting the ratio fixed under the scheme which is legally impermissible. A writ Court seldom interferes with the orders passed by such authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions, unless there is serious procedural illegality or irregularity or they have acted in excess of their jurisdiction. If there is any dispute on the proper implementation of the ratio or inclusion or exclusion of any route or area in the Scheme, the RTA can always examine the same, if it is moved. The direction given by the High Court to the RTA to grant regular permits to the private operators, is therefore, patently illegal. We therefore, allow all these Civil Appeals as follows-

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's direction to grant Stage Carriage Permits to private operators.
2. Compliance with the 1990 Scheme and its 1997 modifications.
3. Authority of the State Transport Undertakings (STUs) and private operators in operating on National and State Highways.
4. Applicability and interpretation of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. Role and jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Direction to Grant Stage Carriage Permits to Private Operators:
The High Court directed the Commissioner to grant Stage Carriage Permits to private operators, rejecting the claims of the STUs. The Supreme Court found this direction to be legally impermissible. The High Court's decision was based on the non-utilization of permits by the STUs, which the Supreme Court deemed insufficient grounds for granting regular permits to private operators. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunal and the High Court had committed a grave error by disturbing the ratio fixed by the 1990 Scheme and its 1997 modifications.

2. Compliance with the 1990 Scheme and its 1997 Modifications:
The 1990 Scheme, modified in 1997, mandates that routes on National and State Highways be shared by STUs and private operators in specified ratios (75:25 for National Highways and 40:60 for State Highways). The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal and the High Court had misinterpreted the Scheme by granting regular permits to private operators, thereby upsetting the legally binding ratio. The Court reiterated that the Scheme's provisions are statutory and cannot be altered by the Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs) or the Tribunal.

3. Authority of the STUs and Private Operators in Operating on National and State Highways:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the Scheme confers a monopoly on the State in respect of transport services, either completely or partially excluding other persons. The Court asserted that private operators have no right to claim regular permits on notified routes except within the quota earmarked for them under the Scheme. The Court also pointed out that the power to modify or cancel the Scheme rests solely with the State Government under Section 102 of the Act.

4. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Section 104 restricts the grant of permits in respect of notified areas or routes, allowing only temporary permits if no application for a permit has been made by the STUs. The Supreme Court clarified that even if the STUs fail to utilize or surrender the permits, the RTAs can only grant temporary permits to private operators to meet temporary needs, without upsetting the fixed ratio. The Court cited previous judgments to support this interpretation, emphasizing that the Scheme's provisions have an overriding effect over the RTAs' powers under Chapter V of the Act.

5. Role and Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The Supreme Court underscored that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate. The High Court should not re-appreciate findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities unless there is a serious procedural illegality or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the grant of regular permits to private operators, which is a statutory function of the RTAs under Section 72 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments and upholding the order of the Commissioner as affirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Court clarified that while RTAs can grant temporary permits to meet temporary needs on notified routes, they cannot grant regular permits to private operators in violation of the Scheme's fixed ratio. The judgment reinforces the statutory nature of transport schemes and the limited scope of judicial intervention in such matters.

← Previous Next →