Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
VIKRAM SHITOLE & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench
Miscellaneous petition No.572 of 1985 dated January 13,1986
The admitted position is that the rote in question,
i.e. Gwalior to Indore, was notified under chapter IV-A of
Motor Vehicles Act ("Act 4 of 1939", for Short) which has
been repealed and reenacted by motor Vehicles Act ,1088.
After the approved route was published under section 68D(3),
a scheme was framed under which unemployed graduates were
permitted under "self employment scheme" to operate the
stage carriages and conditions. It would appear that to
certain terms and conditions. It would appear that the
appellants did not comply with the said terms and conditions
as a result of which their permits were cancelled by the
authorities Calling the action in question the appellants
filed a writ petition The High Court has dismissed the said
writ petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.
The controversy is longer res integra. It is settled
legal position that once notification under subsection (3)
of section 68-D of the Act is published in the Gazette, all
the pre-existing operators shall cease to operate on the
frozen routes except in accordance with the terms and
conditions mentioned in the scheme itself which is law by
itself. If the state Road Transport corporation fails to
obtain permit power has been granted to STA/RTA to grant
temporary permit until the S.R.T.C. Obtains regular permits.
In this case, admittedly the state Road Transport
Corporation had the permits Obtained and that therefore,
under the notified scheme no one except the state Road
Transport Corporation shall exclusively ply the stage
carriages on the notified route in terms of the scheme
itself. The self employment scheme therefore, is obviously
illegal, This court in the Case of Brij Mohan Parihar etc.
V. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. etc.(1987)1
SCC 13) Considered this aspect of the matter and in
paragraph 3
Of the judgment it was help that it is not , however,
permissible under the Act for the Corporation to obtain a
permissible under the Act for the Corporation to obtain a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
permit under Chapter IV-A of Act and to allow a Private
operator as its nominee to operate under that permit his
motor Vehicle as a stage Carriage on the notified route. It
cannot be granted permission to collect any money either as
nomination fees or as royalty or supervision charges. Thus
it would be seen that in a notified route no private
operator is entitled to ply the stage carriage. Accordingly,
We hold that dismissal of the appellants writ petition by
the High Court is not vitiated by error law Warranting
interferance.
The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No Costs.