U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. SHANTI DEVI SRI RATAN LAL SHUKLA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has been constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. A proposal for nationalization of route Shergarh Gaht-Orai-Divyapur-Tirva under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was published in the official gazette on 20.11.1961. The above route was notified for exclusive operation of the State Transport undertaking by a scheme published under Section 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 vide notification No. 480-65 dated 26.8/1970, published in official gazette on 5.9.1970,

(2.) Under clause 4 and 8 of the aforesaid scheme, the route was reserved for exclusive operation of the Corporation and the permits of the existing private operators, including that of respondent No. 1 Smt. Shanti Devi, were cancelled. Writ Petition No. 4707 of 1970 was filed before this Court Challenging the scheme of nationalization of the route in question. An interim order was granted in favour of the existing private operators by this Court on 17.10.1970. On the basis of the aforesaid interim order, permits to 23 existing operators were renewed from time to time.

(3.) In view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in 1974 Standing Counsel 1940, the transport authorities stopped the plying of the private operators on the aforesaid notified route. The State of U.P., however, came up with U.P. Act No. 27 of 1976. Under Section 5 of the said Act, it was provided that private operators, holding permit on the notified route on the relevant date, would be granted authorization by the competent authority, for plying of their vehicles on the notified route, on payment of administrative and other charges to the Corporation. In order to keep the record straight it may be noticed that respondent No. 1 was also one of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4707 of 1970. However, she had withdrawn her name from the said writ petition because of grant of compensatory permit by the State respondent on another route.