SUMER CHAND SHARMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P AND ANR. ETC.ETC.

    766
A

                        SlllER CHAND SllABMA & ANR.
                                   v.
                    STAlE OF U.P. & AlL ETC. ETC~

                             APRIL 24, 1986,
B
            [O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ,]

          Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehi'cles Special Provisions Act,
    (Act XXVII of 1976), 1976, sections 1(3) and (5), scope of -
    Operation of stage carriages by private operators over co111110n
c   sectors of nationalised routes, provided they did not set down
    or pick up passengers at any point on the co111110n sectors
    despite total ban after the nationalisation of bus routes in
    1950 by virtue of section lO(l)(c) of U,P, Act IX of 1955 and
    even after statutory prohibition with effect from 1.4.1971 by
    section 76 of Central Act 56 of 1969, by "practice", - Whether     +
D   such operators are entitled for           renewal of their
    authorisations under sections 1(3) and (5) of U.P. Act, 27 of
    1976 - Motor Vehicles 1939, section 135(2) and Uttar Pradesh
    Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955.

            After the nationalisation of bus routes in the Fifties,
E   it was not permissible to permit any private operator to ply a
    stage carriage on any sector of the nationalised routes as the
    schemes of nationalisation did not provide for it. However, by
    virtue of section 10(1) (c) of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport
    Services (Development) Act, (Act IX of 1955), 1955 private
    operators were allowed to ply the stage carriages on the whole
F   of their routes including the COllllOn sectors. U.P. Act (IX of
    1955) was repealed by Central Act LXVI of 1969. By virtue of
    section 76 inserted as section 135 of Motor Vehicles Act, the
    pe::iaission granted to them being inconsistent with the
    provisions of the KV Act ceased to be effective from 1.4.71,
    the date of repeal of the 1955 Act. Despite this statutory
G   prohibition, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, a "Practice", grew
    whereby private operators were continued to be pemitted to
    ply their stage carriages over cOllllOn sectors of nationalised
    routes provided that they did not set down or pick up
    passengers at any point on the commn sectors. In 1976 the
    Uttar Pradesh Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Motor
H   Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 1976 to provide for the grant
                      SUMER CHAND SHARMA v. STATE                767

      of authorisation to holders of stage carriage permits to ply      A
·-.I, their   stage carriages over co111110n sectors. When the
      applications moved by such private operators for renewal of
      their authorisation, were rejected on the ground that they did
      not possess permits on the dates of the natonalisation
      notifications, some of them moved the High Court of Allabahad
      under Article 226 and after the dismissal of their writ           B
      petitions have come up by way of special leave, while some
      others have filed their petitions directly under Article 32 of
~~ the Constitution.

          Dismissing the petitions, the Court

            llKLD: 1. Where a route is nationalised Chapter IV-A of     c
     the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to the total exclusion of private
     operators, a private operator with a permit to ply a stage
 --+ carriage over another route which has a co111110n overlapping
     sector with the nationalised route cannot be permitted to ply
     his vehicle over that part of the overlapping co111110n sector,
     even if he did not pick up or set down passengers on that part     D
     of the route. While permissions granted under section lO(l)(c)
     of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Services (Development) Act,
     Act IX of 1955 were patently inconsistent with the provisions
     of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and therefore,
  ,1 ceased to be effective from 1.4.1971, the date of the repeal
     of 1955 Act, the "Practice" of permitting private operators to     E
     ply their stage carriages over co111110n sectors of nationalised
     routes, subject to conditions was wholly unauthorised and
     without ·any legal sanctions whatsoever. Hence, the plying of
  4
     stage carriages by the private operators before the co11111ence-
     ment of 1976 Act pursuant to such unauthorised and unlawful
      '!practice" which had grown up in Uttar Pradesh, or under         F
      interim orders of a Court will disentile them to obtain.
     Authorisation under section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor
     Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 1976 (Act 27 of 1976).
       [770 A-DJ
           Adanih Travels v. State of Dttar Pradesh, [ 1985] 2 Scale    G
     880 followed.

 f         Hindustan Transport Collpany v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
     A.I.R. [1984] s.c. 953 referred to.

           ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 255 of     H
     1986 etc.
    768                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS     (1986] 2 S.C.R.
A

          (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

          S.N. Kacker, K.K. Venugopal, R.K. Jain, Ms. Abha Jain,
    Gaurav Jain, Mohd. Iqbal, R.A. Sharma and B.S. Chauhan for the
    Petitioners.
B
          The Order of the Court was delivered by

           CllINNAPPA REDDY, J. The petitioners in these writ
     petitions and special leave petitions held permits to ply
     stage carri.ages over various routes in Uttar Pradesh, sectors
c   of which routes were parts of routes which were nationalised
     in the Fifties. The nationalisation schemes made no provision
     for any private operator plying any stage C>Jrriage over any
    part of the nationalised routes. Operation of stage carriages
    by private operators was totally excluded. The result was that    +-
     from the respective dates of nationalisation, it       was not
D   permissible to permit any private operator to ply a stage
    carriage on any sector of the nationalised route. However, by
    virtue of sec. lO(l)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport
    Services (Development) Act, IX of 1955, these several peti-
    tioners were allowed to ply their stage carriages on the whole
    of their routes including the common sectors. The Uttar
E   Pradesh Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955 was
    repealed by Central Act 56 of 1969. Act 56 of 1969 came into




F
    effect from April 1, 1971. Section 76 of Act 56 of 1969 (which
    was inserted into the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 as s. 135) saved
    permissions or exemptions granted as well as things done or
    actions taken under the repealed enactment so far as they were
    not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The permis-
                                                                           -
    sion granted under sec. lO(l)(c) of U.P. Act IX of 1955 was
    patently inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter IV A of
    the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the permission, therefore,
    ceased to be effective from 1.4.1971, the date of repeal of
    the 1955 Act. Therefore, it was no longer permissible for the
G   private operators to ply their vehicles on the common sectors
    from 1.4.1971 onwards. Despite the statutory prohibition
    against any private operator plying a stage carriage on any
    part of the nationalised route in the absence of a provision
    in the scheme of nationalisation, it appears that a practice
    grew up (we have borrowed the word 'Practice' from one of the
H   judgments of Allahabad High Court which was cited before us)
    in Uttar Pradesh of permitting private operators to ply their
              SUMER CHAND SHARMA v. STATE   [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.]   769

                                                                          A
    _.. stage carriages over co111110n sectors of nationalised routes
        provided they did not set down or pick up passangers at any
        point on the colllOOn sectors. The "Practice" was wholly un-
        authorised and without any legal sanctions whatsoever. However
        in 1976, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature enacted the Uttar
        Pradesh Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 1976 to provide B
        for the grant of authorisation to holders of stage carriage
        permits to ply their stage carriages over conunon sectors. This
        was provided by sec. 5 of the Act. Sec. 5 was interpreted by
        the court in Hfnct.wtm Tr-port Company v. State of Uttar
        Pndesh, A.I.R. (1984] S.C. 953 to mean that the operator
        seeking an authorisation should hold a permit on the date of
        notification. Section 1(3) of the Act makes the provisions of c
     - the Act applicable 'only in relation to schemes approved or
.       purporting to be approved, areas and routes notified or pur-
    -t porting to be notified under Chapter IV A of the Motor Vehicle
        Act, 1939 as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh
        (hereinafter referred to as Principal Act) and to permits
        issued under Principal Act before the co11111encement of this D
        Act.' Basing their submissions on s.1(3) of the 1976 Act, Shri
        S,N, Kacker and Shri K.K. Venugopal learned counsel for peti-
        tioners urged that the petitioners were entitled to obtain
        authorisations from the co~tent authorities under s.5 of the
     ~ Act, if they had permits to ply stage-carriages on the routes
        having COlllllOn sectors on July l, 1976 the date of commencement E


-       of Act 27 of 1976. They complained that on the basis of the
        observations of this court in Hfncli1stan Transport ColipaDJ v.
         State of Uttar Pradesh, (supra) their applications for renewal
        of their authorisations had been wrongly rejected on the
         ground that they did not possess permits on the dates of the
         nationalisation notifications. We do not see any force in the     F
         submission of the learned counsel. As pointed out by us, on
         the repeal of Act 9 of 1955 it was no longer permissible for
         the transport authorities to permit the private operators to
         ply their stage carriages over the co111110n sectors, in the case
         of areas and routes which were nationalised to the complete
         exclusion of private operator. If by reason of the unauthoris-    G
         ed and unlawful practice which had grown up in Uttar Pradesh,
         private operators had been allowed to ply vehicles over co111110n
         sectors, despit~ statutory prohibition, that would surely not
         entitle the operators to obtain authorisations under s.5 of
         the 1976 Act. Whatever doubts there might have been earlier,
         it is now settled by the decision of Constitution Bench in        H
     770                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1986] 2 s.c.R.

A
    Adarsh Travels v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [ 1985] 2 scale 880 '>-
    that where a route is nationalised under Chapter IV A of the
    Motor Vehicles Act to the total exclus ion of private opera-
    tors, a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage
    over another route whi~h has a CvlllllOn overlapping sector with
    the nationalised route cannot be permitted to ply his vehicle
B   over that part of the overlapping connnon sector, even if he
    did not pick up or set down passengers on that part of the~
    route. The law as declared by the court in Adarsh Travels v.
    State of Uttar Pradesh, (supra) !DJSt be considered to have
    always been the law under the Motor Vehicles Act. The plying
    of stage carriages by the private operators before the ~
c   co111111mcement of 1976 Act pursuant to the alleged practice
    which has grown up in Uttar Pradesh or under interim orders of ·
    a court !DJSt be considered to be unauthorised so as to dis- 4 _ • .'.:
    entitle the private operator from seeking the benefit of s.5          ,.
    of Uttar Pradesh Act 27 of 1976. The writ petitions and
    special leave petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
D


    S.R.                                       Petitions dismissed.




                                                                        t
                                                                            -