P K MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is a bus operator on the Vidhuna-Kachauraghat Route, which is within the jurisdiction of R.T.A., Kanpur. THE petitioner has challenged the validity of circular dated 13.6.2003, Annexure-2 to the petition. By that circular the number of permits on the routes of the State have been increased by the Trade Commissioner, U.P. by 20%. This order was passed in pursuance to the decision of a meeting under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, U.P.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the R.T.A. could fix the strength of a route. There is no provision similar to Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. IT is well known that under the Motor Vehicles Act the existing operators fought tooth and nail to prevent more operators from entering their routes, and often litigation went upto the Supreme Court. This adversely affected the interest of the travelling public who naturally wanted more buses, and hence Section 47 (3) was deleted in the 1988 Act. In Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443, the Supreme Court observed :