9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (7) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey made applications for renewal of their permits but the Regional Transport Authority rejected their application on the ground that a portion of the route lying between Muzaffarnagar-Bamanheri and Saharanpur-Galgalheri formed part of notified routes Muzaffarnagar-Barela-Basera and Saharanpur-Hardwar via Chutmalpur and Galgalheri. Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 filed appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and renewed their permits with corridor restrictions for the overlapping portions of the notified routes. The corridor restrictions laid down a condition in the renewed permit to the effect that while plying their stage carriages on the Muzaffarnagar-Saharanpur route via Bamanheri and Galgalheri, respondents Nos. 3 to 14 shell not pick up or set down passengers on the notified portion of the route, namely, Muzaffarnagar-Bamanheri and Saharanpur-Galgalheri route. The U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) filed writ petition in this Court challenging the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 3. At the hearing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Regional Transport Authority is directed to take steps for giving effect to the scheme in respect of the notified area or route. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 68-F (2) require the Regional Transport Authority to reject any application made for the grant and renewal of permit of private operator if it relates to a notified route or area and cancel or modify the permits of existing operators so as to curtail the area or the route covered by the permit in so far as the permit may relate to any overlapping portion of the notified area or route. Section 68-F (2) contemplates that the integrity of an approved scheme for providing road transport service by the State Transport Undertaking to the complete exclusion of private operators must be maintained and for that purpose no permit should be renewed and existing permits should be cancelled or, if necessary, the area of a route covered by the permit should be curtailed or modified. Section 68-F of the provisions contained in Chapter IV-A do not permit transport authorities constituted under the Act, to renew or grant any stage carriage permits to a private operator for providing road transport services on any notified route or por ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e granted to any private operator whose route traversed or overlapped any part or whole of that notified route. The Supreme Court examined the approved scheme to ascertain whether the scheme read as a whole prohibited private operators from operating on the notified route or any portion thereof and after the scrutiny of the scheme the Court held that the scheme provided that the notified route was to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the total exclusion of other operators. On behalf of the private operators it was urged that integrity of the scheme was not affected if overlapping was for a short distance and if they were permitted to ply their vehicles with corridor restrictions of not picking up or setting down passengers on the overlapping part of the notified route. The Supreme Court repelled the contention in the following manner: There is no justification for holding that the integrity of the notified scheme is not affected if the overlapping is under five miles or because a condition has been stipulated in the permit that the operators will not pick up or set down any passengers on the overlapping route. 7. The principle which thus emerges is that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtion of the notified route, the permit must be modified or curtailed to give effect to the scheme so that no private operator is permitted to provide road transport services on any portion of the notified route. The permit of an existing operator may be for a different route, but if the route of the existing permit overlaps any portion of the notified route, the permit cannot be renewed because that would grant licence to private operators to provide road transport services on the notified route in violation of the scheme. For these reasons we are of the opinion that Radhey Lal Sarin's case does not lay down correct law. 9. In the instant case the scheme relating to Muzaffarnagar-Barla-Basena route as finally approved and published contains provision for exclusive operation of the notified route by the State Transport Undertaking. Clause 3 of the scheme provides that the State Transport Services shall be provided on the route or a portion thereof and the provision of transport services otherwise than under the scheme is prohibited. Clause 4 lays down that no person other than the State Government shall be permitted to provide any road transport service on the route or porti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Even if the respondents do not pick up or set down passengers on the notified portion of the route they would certainly carry passengers from a point prior to one termini to place beyond the other termini of the notified route and in doing so they would charge fare from the passengers for the notified portion of the route. Thus they would be carrying passengers for hire and reward on the notified' portion of the route. This would certainly be in contravention of the two schemes noted earlier which impose complete prohibition against private operators to ply their motor vehicles or carrying goods for hire or reward on the notified route or portion thereof. 11. Shri Dhaon then placed reliance on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Sanehi v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 2426 of 1968, D/- 20-8-1970 in support of his contention. In Ram Sanehi's case, the Supreme Court held that the plying of stage carriage vehicles by private operators on an overlapping portion of the notified route with corridor restrictions did not violate the integrity of the scheme. The Supreme Court on examination of the scheme before it found that the sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
