SHIV SHANKER DIXIT Vs. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner held a temporary stage carriage permit on a notified route. On its being cancelled the petitioner has come up before this Court by means of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) FOR the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act there is a route known as Babarpur Dibiapur - Dinwamau - Sahayal there in after referred to as shorter notified route. The streets of 9 Kms. From Dinwamau to Sahayal is a non-notified route. The route was notified under Section 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act in pursuance of a notification published in the Gazette dated 5th September, 1970. The portion of this route from Dibiapur to Dinwamau also forms part of another notified route known as Snergarh Ghat - Auraiya Dibiapur-Tirwa thereinafter referred to as "longer notified route. As a result of coming into force of the scheme for the said route four permits of the existing operators were cancelled. Subsequently U.P. legislature passed an Act know as U.P Act No. 27 of 1976 (U.P Motor Vehicles (special provision) Act, 1976). Section 5 of the Act provded that an operator who held a permit on the notified route on the relevant date could be granted authorisation by the competent Authority constituted under the Act to ply on the notified route on payment of Administrative, operational and control charges to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. However, the State Transport Authority granted three permits on the route in question. Against the aforesaid grant of permit the U.P. Road Transport Corporation filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal but the same was rejected. The Corporation filed a writ petition in this Court but the same was also dismissed as it was the view of this Court that an operator who held a permit on commencement of this Act was entitled to have an authorisation certificate under the Act. The corporation thereafter filed a Civil Appeal No. 1367 of 1982 before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India by its judgment dated 7th October, 1988 allowed the appeal of the Corporation and set aside the grant of permit on the ground that no one is entitled to authorisation to ply the vehicle except only those who held permits prior to the enforcement of the notified scheme on the route in question. However, the Supreme Court in its operative portion of the judgment directed that the respondents in the appeal would continue to ply their vehicles on shorter notified route till 31st October, 1988 subject to their paying requisite taxes. The Supreme Court further directed that the Corporation shall put additional buses on the route in question with effect from 1.11.1988 to meet the demand of the travelling public who will be affected prejudicially by the stoppage of the buses which were being operated by the respondents in the said appeal. The Corporation is said to have given an application to the Regional Transport Authority Kanpuron 20th September, 1989 for grant of four permits on Auraiya Babarpur via Dibiapur route and for 12 permits at Auraiya-Tirwa via bela and these routes overlaps the route in question namely Babarpur.Dibiapur Dinwamau (shorter notified route). According to the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation the Regional Transport Authority for the reason best known to them did not any permit to the Corporation in respect of above routed

(3.) INITIALLY in this case Smt. Kusum Kapoor and the U.P. State Road Transport were not implied as party in the writ petition but on their applications for impleadment as respondents in the writ petition they were impleaded as respondents no.2 and 3 respectively counter affidavits filled by them were taken on record.