Shitole & Anr Vs. The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors
 INSC 1596 (11
O R D
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for Short) which has been repealed and reenacted by motor Vehicles Act ,1088.
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.
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.
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 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 interference.
appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No Costs.
Pages: 1 2