9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether under a scheme in which a notified route overlaps a portion of a pre-existing route, there is total exclusion of private operators without specific provision for canceling or modifying existing permits on the overlapped route, and if the permits can be renewed to cover the overlapped portion of the notified route. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Overlapping Notified Routes and Exclusion of Private Operators: The primary question referred to the Bench was whether under a scheme where a notified route overlaps a portion of a pre-existing route, there is total exclusion of private operators without specific provisions for canceling or modifying existing permits on the overlapped route. The judgment delved into the facts where private operators held stage carriage permits for the Muzaffarnagar-Saharanpur route. Their renewal applications were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority due to overlapping with notified routes. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, however, renewed their permits with corridor restrictions, which prohibited picking up or setting down passengers on the overlapping portions. 2. Legal Authority of State Transport Appellate Tribunal: The Corporation challenged the Tribunal's authority to renew or grant permits on any portion of the notified routes. The argument was based on the absence of specific directions in the scheme for canceling or modifying the respondents' permits. The respondents contended that the renewal with corridor restrictions did not violate the integrity of the notified routes. The judgment referenced a Division Bench decision in State of U.P. v. Radhey Lal Sarin, which allowed private operators to ply on overlapping portions if the scheme did not explicitly prohibit it. 3. Provisions Under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act: The judgment examined Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which includes provisions for notifying routes and canceling or modifying existing permits. Section 68-C empowers the State Transport Undertaking to prepare schemes for exclusive or partial exclusion of other operators. Once a scheme is approved and published, Section 68-F (2) mandates the Regional Transport Authority to reject applications for permits and cancel or modify existing permits to maintain the scheme's integrity. 4. Total vs. Partial Exclusion Schemes: The judgment differentiated between schemes providing total monopoly to the State Transport Undertaking and those allowing partial exclusion of private operators. In cases of total exclusion, private operators cannot obtain permits for the notified routes. However, if the scheme allows partial exclusion, private operators may be permitted to operate under specific terms and conditions. 5. Supreme Court Precedents: The judgment referenced Supreme Court cases, including Abdul Ghafoor v. State of Mysore and Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal. These cases established that if a scheme prohibits private operators on notified routes, the Regional Transport Authority cannot renew or grant permits for overlapping routes, even with corridor restrictions. The integrity of the scheme must be maintained without exceptions for short distances or conditions on permits. 6. Correct Interpretation of Scheme Provisions: The judgment disagreed with the Division Bench's view in Radhey Lal Sarin's case, which required explicit provisions in the scheme for canceling or modifying permits. It clarified that once a scheme mandates exclusive operation by the State Transport Undertaking, the Regional Transport Authority must act to cancel or modify existing permits accordingly. The judgment emphasized that the legislative mandate under Section 68-F (2) must be followed to give effect to the scheme. 7. Examination of Specific Schemes: The judgment analyzed the specific schemes for Muzaffarnagar-Barela-Basera and Saharanpur-Hardwar routes. Both schemes contained clauses prohibiting private operators and mandating exclusive operation by the State Transport Undertaking. The judgment concluded that these schemes imposed a complete ban on private operators, and the consequences under Section 68-F (2) must follow. 8. Corridor Restrictions and Integrity of the Scheme: The respondents argued that corridor restrictions did not violate the scheme's integrity. The judgment rejected this argument, stating that even with corridor restrictions, private operators would still carry passengers for hire on the notified portions, contravening the scheme's provisions. 9. Supreme Court's Unreported Decision in Ram Sanehi's Case: The judgment addressed the reliance on the unreported Supreme Court decision in Ram Sanehi v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. It distinguished the case by noting that the scheme in Ram Sanehi's case did not provide for complete exclusion of private operators. The judgment emphasized that the principle from Mysore State Road Transport Corporation's case, which is later in time, should be followed. 10. Conclusion and Answer to the Referred Question: The judgment concluded that since the schemes for Muzaffarnagar-Barela-Basera and Saharanpur-Hardwar routes provided for complete exclusion of private operators, the respondents' permits could not be renewed for the overlapping portions. It was not necessary for the scheme to contain specific provisions for canceling or modifying existing permits. The question referred to the Bench was answered in the negative. Separate Judgment by Hirdai Narain Seth, J.: Hirdai Narain Seth, J. concurred with the judgment and agreed with the analysis and conclusions drawn. This comprehensive analysis covers all relevant issues and preserves the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text, ensuring a thorough understanding of the judgment.
|
