Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
SUMER CHAND SHARMA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/04/1986
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION:
1986 AIR 1112 1986 SCR (2) 766
1986 SCC (3) 263 1986 SCALE (1)1280
CITATOR INFO :
D 1987 SC 29 (3)
R 1988 SC 303 (2)
ACT:
Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act,
(Act XXVII of 1976), 1976, sections 1(3) and (5), scope of
Operation of stage carriages by private operators over
common sectors of nationalised routes, provided they did not
set down or pick up passengers at any point on the common
sectors despite total ban after the nationalisation of bus
routes in 1950 by virtue of section 10(1)(c) of U.P. Act IX
of 1955 and even after statutory prohibition with effect
from 1.4.1971 by section 76 of Central Act 56 of 1969, by
"practice", - Whether such operators are entitled for
renewal of their authorisations under sections 1(3) and (5)
of U.P. Act, 27 of 1976 - Motor Vehicles 1939, section
135(2) and Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Services
(Development) Act, 1955.
HEADNOTE:
After the nationalisation of bus routes in the Fifties,
it was not permissible to permit any private operator to ply
a stage carriage on any sector of the nationalised routes as
the schemes of nationalisation did not provide for it.
However, by virtue of section 10(1) (c) of Uttar Pradesh
Road Transport Services (Development) Act, (Act IX of 1955),
1955 private operators were allowed to ply the stage
carriages on the whole of their routes including the common
sectors. U.P. Act (IX of 1955) was repealed by Central Act
LXVI of 1969. By virtue of section 76 inserted as section
135 of Motor Vehicles Act, the permission granted to them
being inconsistent with the provisions of the MV Act ceased
to be effective from 1.4.71, the date of repeal of the 1955
Act. Despite this statutory prohibition, in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, a "Practice", grew whereby private operators
were continued to be permitted to ply their stage carriages
over common sectors of nationalised routes provided that
they did not set down or pick up passengers at any point on
the common sectors. In 1976 the Uttar Pradesh Legislature
enacted the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Special Provisions
Act, 1976 to provide for the grant
767
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
of authorisation to holders of stage carriage permits to ply
their stage carriages over common sectors. When the
applications moved by such private operators for renewal of
their authorisation, were rejected on the ground that they
did not possess permits on the dates of the nationalisation
notifications, some of them moved the High Court of
Allabahad under Article 226 and after the dismissal of their
writ petitions have come up by way of special leave, while
some others have filed their petitions directly under
Article 32 of the Constitution.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
^
HELD: 1. Where a route is nationalised Chapter IV-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to the total exclusion of
private operators, a private operator with a permit to ply a
stage carriage over another route which has a common
overlapping sector with the nationalised route cannot be
permitted to ply his vehicle over that part of the
overlapping common sector, even if he did not pick up or set
down passengers on that part of the route. While permissions
granted under section 10(1)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Road
Transport Services (Development) Act, Act IX of 1955 were
patently inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter IV-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and therefore, ceased to be
effective from 1.4.1971, the date of the repeal of 1955 Act,
the "Practice" of permitting private operators to ply their
stage carriages over common sectors of nationalised routes,
subject to conditions was wholly unauthorised and without
any legal sanctions whatsoever. Hence, the plying of stage
carriages by the private operators before the commencement
of 1976 Act pursuant to such unauthorised and unlawful
"practice" which had grown up in Uttar Pradesh, or under
interim orders of a Court will disentile them to obtain.
Authorisation under section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor
Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 1976 (Act 27 of 1976). [770
A-D]
Adarsh Travels v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1985] 2
Scale 880 followed.
Hindustan Transport Company v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
A.I.R. [1984] S.C. 953 referred to.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 255
of 1986 etc.
768
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
S.N. Kacker, K.K. Venugopal, R.K. Jain, Ms. Abha Jain,
Gaurav Jain, Mohd. Iqbal, R.A. Sharma and B.S. Chauhan for
the Petitioners.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The petitioners in these writ
petitions and special leave petitions held permits to ply
stage carriages over various routes in Uttar Pradesh,
sectors of which routes were parts of routes which were
nationalised in the Fifties. The nationalisation schemes
made no provision for any private operator plying any stage
carriage over any part of the nationalised routes. Operation
of stage carriages by private operators was totally
excluded. The result was that from the respective dates of
nationalisation, it was not permissible to permit any
private operator to ply a stage carriage on any sector of
the nationalised route. However, by virtue of sec. 10(1)(c)
of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Services (Development) Act,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
IX of 1955, these several petitioners were allowed to ply
their stage carriages on the whole of their routes including
the common sectors. The Uttar Pradesh Road Transport
Services (Development) Act, 1955 was repealed by Central Act
56 of 1969. Act 56 of 1969 came into effect from April 1,
1971. Section 76 of Act 56 of 1969 (which was inserted into
the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 as s. 135) saved permissions or
exemptions granted as well as things done or actions taken
under the repealed enactment so far as they were not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The permission
granted under sec. 10(1)(c) of U.P. Act IX of 1955 was
patently inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter IV A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the permission, therefore,
ceased to be effective from 1.4.1971, the date of repeal of
the 1955 Act. Therefore, it was no longer permissible for
the private operators to ply their vehicles on the common
sectors from 1.4.1971 onwards. Despite the statutory
prohibition against any private operator plying a stage
carriage on any part of the nationalised route in the
absence of a provision in the scheme of nationalisation, it
appears that a practice grew up (we have borrowed the word
’Practice’ from one of the judgments of Allahabad High Court
which was cited before us) in Uttar Pradesh of permitting
private operators to ply their
769
stage carriages over common sectors of nationalised routes
provided they did not set down or pick up passangers at any
point on the common sectors. The "Practice" was wholly
unauthorised and without any legal sanctions whatsoever.
However in 1976, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature enacted the
Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 1976 to
provide for the grant of authorisation to holders of stage
carriage permits to ply their stage carriages over common
sectors. This was provided by sec. 5 of the Act. Sec. 5 was
interpreted by the court in Hindustan Transport Company v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. [1984] S.C. 953 to mean that
the operator seeking an authorisation should hold a permit
on the date of notification. Section 1(3) of the Act makes
the provisions of the Act applicable ’only in relation to
schemes approved or purporting to be approved, areas and
routes notified or purporting to be notified under Chapter
IV A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 as amended in its
application to Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as
Principal Act) and to permits issued under Principal Act
before the commencement of this Act.’ Basing their
submissions on s.1(3) of the 1976 Act, Shri S.N. Kacker and
Shri K.K. Venugopal learned counsel for petitioners urged
that the petitioners were entitled to obtain authorisations
from the competent authorities under s.5 of the Act, if they
had permits to ply stage-carriages on the routes having
common sectors on July 1, 1976 the date of commencement of
Act 27 of 1976. They complained that on the basis of the
observations of this court in Hindustan Transport Company v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (supra) their applications for
renewal of their authorisations had been wrongly rejected on
the ground that they did not possess permits on the dates of
the nationalisation notifications. We do not see any force
in the submission of the learned counsel. As pointed out by
us, on the repeal of Act 9 of 1955 it was no longer
permissible for the transport authorities to permit the
private operators to ply their stage carriages over the
common sectors, in the case of areas and routes which were
nationalised to the completed exclusion of private operator.
If by reason of the unauthorised and unlawful practice which
had grown up in Uttar Pradesh, private operators had been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
allowed to ply vehicles over common sectors, despite
statutory prohibition, that would surely not entitle the
operators to obtain authorisations under s.5 of the 1976
Act. Whatever doubts there might have been earlier, it is
now settled by the decision of Constitution Bench in
770
Adarsh Travels v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1985] 2 scale 880
that where a route is nationalised under Chapter IV A of the
Motor Vehicles Act to the total exclusion of private
operators, a private operator with a permit to ply a stage
carriage over another route which has a common overlapping
sector with the nationalised route cannot be permitted to
ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common
sector, even if he did not pick up or set down passengers on
that part of the route. The law as declared by the court in
Adarsh Travels v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (supra) must be
considered to have always been the law under the Motor
Vehicles Act. The plying of stage carriages by the private
operators before the commencement of 1976 Act pursuant to
the alleged practice which has grown up in Uttar Pradesh or
under interim orders of a court must be considered to be
unauthorised so as to disentitle the private operator from
seeking the benefit of s.5 of Uttar Pradesh Act 27 of 1976.
The writ petitions and special leave petitions are,
therefore, dismissed.
S.R. Petitions dismissed.
771