Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2350 (ALL)

SHARAD GUPTA v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-08-06

VIJAY LAKSHMI, VINEET SARAN

body2014
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri A.D. Saunders, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Samir Sharma learned counsel for respondent No. 3, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and have perused the record. With consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioners are private operators who have been granted permits to ply their stage carriage vehicles on the route between Panethi- Jalali-Baria-Charra-Dadon-Shankra extended from Alampur to Atrauli via Hardoi-Pali- Tochi- Bijauli (hereinafter referred to as “route in question”). They are aggrieved by the consideration of the application of the respondent No. 3, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for grant of permit on the route in question. They have thus filed this writ petition for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Regional Transport Authority, Aligarh not to grant or issue any permit to the respondent No. 3 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for the route in question. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is in two fold. Firstly, once certain routes are notified for U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, and others routes are open for the private operators as non notified routes, the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation cannot be granted permit for such non notified routes. The other submission of Sri Saunders is that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is unable to provide their buses on the notified routes and for that they have hired private buses to operate on such notified routes under their supervision and control. He, thus, contends that since the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation cannot cater to the demand of the traveling public even on the notified routes, they should not be permitted to operate on non notified routes where the private operators alone be permitted to ply the buses after getting valid permits from the Transport Authority. 4. Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for contesting respondent No. 3 has submitted that the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement of Division Bench of this Court dated 20.12.2005 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76001 of 2005, Smt. Jameela Begum and another v. State of U.P and others. 4. Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for contesting respondent No. 3 has submitted that the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement of Division Bench of this Court dated 20.12.2005 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76001 of 2005, Smt. Jameela Begum and another v. State of U.P and others. It is thus submitted that the writ petition challenging the consideration of application of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for grant of permit for non notified routes would not be maintainable. With regard to other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation cannot cater to the demand of the travelling public and for that they have to hire the vehicles of private operators, Sri Samir Sharma has submitted that once the same is permissible under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 103 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, inserted by U.P. Act 5 of 1993, the buses plying under the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation under an agreement would be permissible and can operate on the notified routes. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. As regards the first contention of Sri Saunders, the same has been dealt with at length in the case of Jameela Begum (supra) wherein it has been held that: “In view of the above, if even the existing operators of a route do not have a locus standi to raise objection at the time of grant of permit, it is beyond imagination that existing operators would have any right to maintain the writ petition restraining the Statutory Authority to consider the applications for grant of permits ?................................... Thus in view of the above, it is evident that on a route which stands notified under Chapter VI of the Act, person who has not been adjusted in the scheme, cannot ply his vehicle. However, it is open to the UPSRTC to apply for grant of a permit on a non-notified route and its application is required to be decided under Section 71 giving preferential treatment..........The Act provides for preferential treatment in certain circumstances as provided in the Act itself. Even if the Statute provides for preference in favour of a particular class of applicants, it is to be accorded only and only if the merits of the applicants are equal............. Even if the Statute provides for preference in favour of a particular class of applicants, it is to be accorded only and only if the merits of the applicants are equal............. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the UPSRTC can apply for grant of permit on a non-notified route, and can ply its vehicles.” (emphasis supplied) 6. In view of the aforesaid, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to have any force. 7. As regards the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation cannot be granted permits out side the notified area as they cannot fulfill the demand of the traveling public on their own within the notified areas, we are of the view that after insertion of sub-section (1A) by way of U.P. Amendment in Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, any vehicle placed at the disposal and under the control of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, by the owner of such vehicle under any agreement entered into between such owner and and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for the use of said vehicle by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation would be permissible. As such, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner Sri. A.D. Saunders that U.P. State Road Transport Corporation should ply its own buses under the permits issued in its favour and not such buses under its control due to some agreement with private bus owner, also does not have any force. 8. Sri Saunders has then submitted that after the non notified routes were made open to the private operators and there was apprehension of a large number of permits being issued, the State Government had issued Government Order dated 12.8.1997 to ensure that the existing bus operators get a minimum run of 220 Kms per day. He thus, contended that the permits, if any, which may be issued, henceforth, either to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation or any other operators should be issued only after taking into consideration the said State Government order dated 12.8.1997. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has force. 9. He thus, contended that the permits, if any, which may be issued, henceforth, either to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation or any other operators should be issued only after taking into consideration the said State Government order dated 12.8.1997. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has force. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the application of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation for grant of permit on the route in question shall be considered in accordance with law after taking into consideration the Government Order dated 12.8.1997, unless the same has been withdrawn or set aside by any competent authority or Court. No order as to costs. —————