U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LUCKNOW Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW AND ETHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS , Jagat Nath Wahal, Jeewan Nath Wahal and Mahabir Prasad Srivastava made applications before the State Transport Authority, Lucknow, for grant of stage carriage permits on Meerut-Delhi, an inter- State route. The State Transport Authority dismissed all the three applications mainly on the ground that the Meerut-Delhi was a notified route under the Motor Vehicles Act and as such no stage carriage permit could legally be granted to the said applicants. The order of the State Transport Authority was challenged in appeal by Jagannath Wahal, Jeewan Nath Wahal and Mahabir Prasad Srivastava before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal); By its order dated 27th February, 1973, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the three appeals and set aside the order of the State Transport Authority. It further directed the State Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permits to each of the three appellants. The Appellate Tribunal held that there was no valid nationalisation scheme in existence in respect of Meerut-Delhi route, consequently the route was not notified and therefore the stage carriage permits could legally be granted to the applicants under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act. The U. P. State Road Transport Corporation thereafter filed the present petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of the Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) SRI S. N. Kackar, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of the Appellate Tribunal was manifestly erroneous; it had no jurisdiction to issue direction for the grant of any stage carriage permits to the respondents on the Meerut-Delhi route as that route was a notified route and the State Road Transport Corporation had exclusive right in law to ply its vehicles on that route to the complete exclusion of other private persons. Sri S. C. Khare, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 5 to 7, strenuously urged that the route in question was not a notified route; therefore the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to issue direction for the grant of stage carriage permits to the respondents. He disputed the petitioner' right to ply its vehicles exclusively on the Meerut-Delhi route. Thus the main controversy in the case is whether the route in question is a notified route and if so whether the U. P. Road Transport Corporation has got exclusive right to ply its vehicles on the route and the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant permits to private operators.

(3.) THE State Government was keen to have monopoly and exclusive right to operate road transport services on the various routes, therefore it sought the assistance of the legislature. Consequently the U. P. Road Transport Act (No. II of 1951) was enacted by the State Legislature which received assent of the President. The Act was enforced with effect from 10th February, 1951. The Act conferred power on the State Government to operate its road transport services exclusively in accordance with the provisions of the Act which contemplated framing of schemes in accordance with Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Act. The provisions contained in the Act ensured monopoly in favour of the State Road Transport Services operated by the State Government to the complete exclusion of the private operators. Section 13 of the Act sought to validate the operation of the State Road Transport Services which had commenced plying on different routes prior to the enforcement of the Act. Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act laid down that every route, on which the State Road Transport Services were operating on the appointed day (9th February, 1951) was deemed to be a notified route under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the said Act provided the State Government within fifteen days of the commencement of the Act issued a notification notifying the scheme in respect of those routes. On the issue of such a notification all the routes included in that notification shall be called a notified route and the consequences contemplated by Sections 6 and 7 will ensue with the result no permit could be granted to any private operator and the State Road Transport Services will exclusively operate on the said route. Section 13 (1) (b) thus sought to validate the operation of the State Road Transport Services to create monopoly in favour of the State with retrospective effect. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 13 (1) (b) of the 1951 Act issued a notification dated 12th February, 1951, published in the U. P. Extraordinary Gazette of the same date notifying schemes for a large number of routes over which the State Government had been operating its stage carriages on the date immediately preceding the commencement of the said Act. A copy of the notification has been filed as Annexure I to the petition. A perusal of that notification would show that Meerut-Delhi route was also notified along with other interstatal route, namely Dehradun- Delhi via Ghaziabad.