Holding

No private operator can be permitted to operate on a notified route except by modifying the scheme, and therefore the High Court's order directing issuance of permits is unsustainable.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) challenged a High Court order that directed the State Transport Authority to issue 38 stage‑carriage permits to private operators for the Muzaffarnagar‑Chajlet route. The permits covered the Bijnor‑Noorpur segment, which had been notified as a state‑run road‑transport service in 1951, and later the entire Muzaffarnagar‑Bijnor stretch was notified in 1994. Under Sections 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, private operators cannot ply on a notified (nationalised) route unless the scheme is amended. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s direction violated this statutory prohibition and whether the dismissal of several Special Leave Petitions in limine amounted to res judicata. It held that the notifications created a total exclusion of private operators and that the High Court’s order could not stand. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and allowed the appeals, without awarding costs.

Issues considered

Whether a private operator may be granted a stage‑carriage permit on a route that includes a portion notified as a state‑run road‑transport service under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Whether the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions in limine operates as res judicata or as an endorsement of the High Court's order.
Whether the High Court's direction to issue permits is valid in view of the 1951 and 1994 notifications.
Whether the matter should be decided by the Supreme Court or remanded to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actstage carriage permitsnotified routestate road transport corporationres judicataspecial leave petitionnationalised routepublic transportjurisdictionSupreme Courtappeal

Judgment

A U.P. ST ATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN
v.
OMADITY A VERMA AND ORS.

APRIL 5, 2005
B
[ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 104-State Road Transport service
C schemes notifying certain routes-Grant ofpermits to private operators on the
notified routes or on portion thereof-Restriction on-Held: No private operator
can be permitted to operate on a notified route except by modifing Scheme
and after making provisions for the same-On facts, since the route from
Bijnor to Noorpur was notified way back in 1951, no permit could have been
issued in pursuance f!fthe resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 and likewise
D. under notification dated September 3; 1994 when the route from Muzaffarnagar
to Bijnor had been notified, no permit could have been granted on the aforesaid
route as both schemes are oftotal exclusion ofprivate operators from notified
routes-Motor VehiclesAct, 1939-Section 68-FF.

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-SLP dismissed in limine by
E Supreme Court-Matter remanded back to Tribunal for fresh disposal-Held:
Dismissal of the SLP in lim.ine neither amounts to res judicata nor does it
amount to upholding of the law propounded in the decision sought to be
appealed against.

Under notification dated September 3, 1994 the whole route from
F Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore via Jansath, Meerapur-and Dewal stood
notified. The route·from Bijnore to Noorpur was already notified by
notificatioq dated February 12, 1951. As a result of these two aforesaid
schemes, the entire route of Muzaffarnagar Jansath, Meerapur, Dewal to
Bijnore stood notified.
G
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeals is
as to whether the State Transport Authority could not have, by its
resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 granted stage carriage permits to private
operators for route from Muzaffarpur to Chhaljet via Ganga Bridge,
Bijnore and Noorpur as a portion of that route covered the notified route.
H 166
- U.P. STATE ROADTPT. CORPN. v. OMADITYA VERMA 167

Allowing the appeals, the Court A
HELD: 1.1. When the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 was passed
the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor via Jansath Meerapur & Dewal
was not notified but the route from Bijnor to Noorpur was already notified
on February 12, 1951. One fails to understand how could the Regional
Transport Authority and State Transport Authority ignore this fact that B
tlie portion from Bijnor to Noorpur which falls on the route from
Muzaffarnagar to Chajlet was notified, permib we;·t: granted on this
notified route. This ignorance appears to be bona fide as nobody seems to
have been cognizant of the notification dated February 12, 1951.
[177-C-D) C
State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, JT (1996) 3
SC 567 and Narayana Bharma Sanga/ Trust v. Swami Prakashananda and
Ors. , JT (1997) 5 SC 100, referred to.

1.2. Although this matter has travelled up to the Apex Court and it D
has gone through various litigation but nobody brought to the notice of
the authorities that the route from Bijnor to Noorpur is notified one and
no permit could be granted on this route. (177-E)

2. Once it is nationalized route, there is prohibition to permit any
private vehicle to ply except by amending the scheme. It is the mandate E
of the law and that cannot be ignored. More so, at the time when this order

-
was passed by the High Court the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore
via Jansath, Meerapur and Dewal stood notified on September 3, 1994.
Regrettably the High Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and
proceeded t~ decide the matter on the assumption that the effect of this F
Notification dated September 3, 1994 has already been taken into
consideration. [177-F-G)

3.1. It is true that when resolution was passed on June 14-15, 1993
the notification dated September 3, 1994 had not come into operation but
once the scheme under notification dated September 3, 1994 came into G

- operation and the whole route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore stood
notified and the route from Bijnore to Noorpur was already notified by
notification dated February 12, 1951, how can mandamus- ~e issued by
the High Court directing the authorities to grant permits to the 38
operators~ This Court by its order dated July 21, 1995 while remanding
the matter did not go into all these questions. This Court only remanded H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200S] 3 S.C.R.

A the matter to the Tribunal as disputed questions of facts were involved.
The other special leave petitions were dismissed in limine. That does not
amount to merger of the High Court order With that of this Court's order.
The dismissal in limine does not amount to upholding of the law
propounded in the decision sought to be appealed against. rl 78-A-C]

B 3.2. This Court while remanding the matter to the Tribunal·
categorically stated that all these matters should be sent to the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal which shall treat the writ petitions filed in
the High Court as appeals and after hearing all the parties, dispose of the
matters in acco.rdance with law. This Court never expressed any opinion
C on the merits of the case whatsoever. Therefore, the dismissal of SLPs
pertaining to the route io question by various orders of this Court neither
amounts to res judicata nor does it amount that order passed by the High
Court amounts to upholding the law propounded in the decision sought
to be appealed against. More so, the effect of these two notifications i.e.
February 12, 1951 and September 3, 1994 .were not considered by this
D Court or High Court or Tribunal or ST A. rt 79-G-H; 180-A)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar, [1986) 4 SCC 146;
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India and Anr.,
r1989) 4 SCC 187; P. Na/lamma/ and Anr. v. State Represented by Inspector
of Police, (1999) 6 SCC 559 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v.
E Shree Majunathesware Packing Products & Camphor W-orks, (1998) l SCC
598, relied on.

4. Once a scheme is notified it prohibits the plying of private vehicle
except as permitted by Scheme. Both Schemes nowhere permit operation
F by private operators. In view of the fact that the route from Bijnor to
Noorpur was notified way back in 1951, no permit could have been issued
in pursuance of the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 and likewise under
notification dated September 3, 1994 when the route from Muzaffarnagar
to Bijnor had been notified, no permit could have been granted on the
aforesaid route as both schemes are of total exclusion. It is settled principle
G of law that no private operator could be permitted to operate on a notified
route except by modifing Scheme and after making provisions for the
same. (180-A; 181-A-B)

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrful/a Khan and Ors.
' 120021 2 sec 560, relied on.
H
U.P.STATEROADTPT.CORPN. v.OMADITYAVERMA [MATHUR,J.] 169

CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6716-6719 A
of 1999.

Form the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.97 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. Nos. 9990, 23496, 15746 and 20187 of 1997.

Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi, Pramod Swarup, Ms. Pareena Swarup and B
Ameet Singh with him for the Appellant.

Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abha Jain for the Respondent No. 17 in C.A. No.
6716/99.

S. Borthakur and Sunil K. Jain, for the Respondent No. 15 in C.A. No. C
6717/99.

Mis. Mitter and Mitter Co., (NP) for Respondent Nos. 13 in C.A. No.
6717/99 and 18 in C.A. No. 6716/99.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
A.K. MATHUR, J. In all these four appeals, the questions of law and
facts involved are common, as such they are disposed of by this common
order.

This case has a chequered history. But before we enter into the chequered E
history, a few important facts may be noticed. The route from Bijnore -
Noorpur-Chandpur was notified under a scheme which was published in the
Official Gazette of the State of U.P. on February 12,1951. Thereafter, by
another Gazette Notification dated October 15,1962, a scheme was prepared
from Bojnore to Muzaffarnagar route of Meerut region. It was directed that F
the State Road Transport service shall commence operation from November
15,1962 or thereafter. Thereafter, on September 28,1977, another route was
notified from Muzaffamagar to Bijnore via Bhopa, Moma and Rawalighat.
This was again modified by another Notification dated 3rd September, 1994
after hearing objections, Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor route of Meerut region i.e.
Muzaffamgar via Jansath, Meerapur, Dewal instead of via. Bhopa and Morna G
and Rawlighat. As a result of these two aforesaid schemes the entire route,
Muzaffamagar Jansath, Meerapur, Dewal to Bijnore stood notified. Therefore,
these two schemes are the subject matter of the present litigation. Relevant
portions of these two notifications i.e. Notification dated February 12, 1952
and September 3, 1994 are reproduced herein below.·
H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.

A These civil appeals on grant of special leave have been filed against the
common order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
dated .September 26, 1997 whereby the High Court allowed four writ petitions
i.e. Civil ¥isc. Writ Petition Nos. 9990, 15746, 20187 and 23496 of 1997
and set aside the order dated July 17, 1990 and quashed the same and directed
the Secretary, State Transport Authority, State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to
B issue permit to all grantees who have not been issued permits on the basis of
the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 forthwith and without any delay.
Aggrieved against this common order the present appeals were filed by the
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to
as "UPSRTC").
c At the initial stag~, notice was directed to be issued on November 13,
1998 on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the SLP but
no interim order was passed. Thereafter, leave was granted on November 18,
1999. On May 11, 2000 Interlocutory applications were dismissed. Now, the
appeals have been set down before us for hearing. Office report dated February
D 21, 2005 shows that in CA 6716of1999, all the 23 respondents were served,.
excepting Respondent Nos. 17 and 18 who are represented by Ms. Abha Jain
and Mis.Mitter and Mitter & Co., the rest of the respondents have not chosen
to enter appearance. In Civil Appeal No. 6717 of 1999 there are 21 , .. 7-

respondents, all ofthem thoogh served by dasti, Re'spond~nt Nos.I tol2, 14 .
E and 16 to 21 have not chosen to appear and contest the proceedings.
Respondent Nos.13 and 15 .are represented through Mis.Mitter & Mitter. &
Co. and Mr. Sunil_ Kumar Jain, Advocate respectively. In Civil Appeal No.
6718 of 1999 there are three respondents and all of them have been served
by dasti. But they have not entered appearance. In Civil Appeal No. 6719 of
1999 there are three respondents. All of them have been served but they have
F not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, all these appeals are before us~

The State Transport Authority ofU.P. by resolution dat(;!d June 14..15
of 1993 granted 38 regular stage carriage permit in the route, namely,
Muzaffamagar- Chhajlet via Gangabridge, Bijnor and Noorpur. Out of 38
persons, 11 persons were issued with necessary permits in the month of July,
·G 1993. Thereafter, series of writ petitions were filed in the High Court. The
first w.rit petition was filed by Sh. Harpal Singh being Writ Petition No. 3511 · .._
.
of 1993 before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court in which an interim
stay order was passed on August 16, 1993 restraining the State Transport
Authority from issuing permits on the route, in question. The Secretary, State
H Transport Authority,"Lucknow passed ari order on July 31, 1993 directing' 11
NOTIFICATION DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1951.
REGION NAME OF DATE OF Number TYPE AND CARRYING NUMBER OF SERVICES
THE COMMENCEMENT OF SRT CAPACITY OF OPERATED BYOTHERS
ROUTE OF OPERATION SERVICES VEHICLES ON THE ROUTE OR
OF STATE ROAD STATE OTHER PART OF IT
TRANSPORT EXCLUSIVELY
2 3 4 56 7
BAREILLY
xx xx xx xx xx xx
18. Bijnor-Noorpur- l.2.49 2 Stage Carriage Nil Nil
chandpur 25-40 Seater.
Xx ·xx xx xxxx xx

--
- .J
-
...:a
N

NOTIFICATION DATED SEPTEMBER 3, l 994.

Serial No. Notification no. and date Name of the approved Modification proposed
By which the scheme was scheme in which the
Approved modification is pr9posed.
2 3 4
l. 4790-T-XXX-2-B-60,. dated Scheme regarding to Bijnore The approved scheme
October 15, l 962 and no. to Muzaffarnagar route mentioned in Column-3
4517/XXX-2-429-86, of Meerut Region. Is modified to cover the
dated September 28, l 977 route between Bijnor and
Muzaffarnagar via
Jansath-Meerapur-Dowal .
instead of the Route via
Bhopa and Morna

'N
0
0
.....
v.

j
J ....
U.P.STATEROADTPT.CORPN. v.OMADITYAVERMA (MATHUR,J.] 173,

permit holders to ply their vehicles on Muzaffamagar-Chhajlet via Jolly- A
Jarwar- Katia route. The Chairman, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow
passed another order on February 2, 1995 directing the said 11 permit holders
to ply their vehicles on Muzaffarnagar-Chhajlet route via Jansath-Meerapur.
The order passed by Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow on
July 31, 1993 was challenged by one Smt. Saima Jamal in a writ petition
being Writ Petition No. 4250 of 1994 at Lucknow Bench of the High Court. B
Another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 7875 of 1994 was filed by one
Sanjeev Kumar challenging the order passed by the Secretary, State Transport
Authority, U.P., Lucknow on July 31, 1993. A subsequent writ petition being
Writ Petition No. 6774 of 1995 was also filed by one Smt. Shashi Goel
challenging the order passed by the Chairman, State Transport Authority, C
U.P., Lucknow on February 2, 1995. The two writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition
No. 7875 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 6774 of 1995 filed before the
Allahabad High Court were decided by the Division Bench by its order dated
May 5, 1995 and order dated July 31, 1993 passed by the Secretary, State
Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow and the order dated February 2, 1995
passed by the Chairman, State Transport Authority, U.P. were quashed and D
the State Transport Authority was directed to pass a specific (!rder indicating
the route for which the permit was granted in the meeting of June 14-15,
1993. This order dated May 5, 1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 7875of1994
and Writ Petition No. 6774 of 1995 was challenged in Special Leave Petition
© No. 13594 of 1995 which was decided by this Court by order dated July E
21, 1995. The following order was passed by this Court:

"Heard the counsel for both the parties.

Leave granted.

We are of the opinion that there are several disputed questions F
of facts and law which require a clear and comprehensive investigation.
For example, one of the questions is whether the original permit
granted to the petitioners on the route Muzaffamagar to Chajlet via
Meerapur, Ganga Bridge & Noorpur runs along the route
Muzaffamagar, Joli, Behra Sadar, Jadwad Katia & Meerapur. There G
is also a controversy as to whether the route Muzaffarnagar to
Meerapur is nationalized or not and further whether there are any
High Court orders precluding the grant of permit on the sector
Muzaffamagar to Meerapur. In all these circumstances, we are of the
opinion that all these matters should be sent to S.T.A.T., which shall
treat the writ petitions filed in High Court as appeals and after hearing H
A
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

all the parties; dispose of the matters in accordance with law."
-
Therefore, by this order the matter stood remanded to the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal for its decision. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed
by this Court, three other writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 4250 of 1994
filed by one Saima Jamal before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court, Writ
B Petition No. 6774 of 1995 filed by Smt. Shashi Goel and Writ Petition No.
7875 of 1994 filed by Sanjiv Kumar were transferred to the Tribunal and
they were registered as Appeal Nos. 127, 142 and .143 of 1995 respectively.
The S.T.A.T. by its order dated January 27, 1996 allowed the appeals and set
aside the orders dated July 31, 1993 and October 25, 1994 passed by the .
C Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow; and order dated February
2, 1995 passed by the Chairman, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow.
1
It was held by the Tribunal that the original permits in pursuance of the
resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 were granted via Jansath-Meerapur. Till
that time, the notification dated September 3, 1994 had not come into force
notifying the route Muzaffamagar- Bijnore via Jansath-Meerapur as a notified
D route and the impugned resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority
was not hit by the notified route. But it appears that perhaps inadvertently all
the parties were totally oblivious of the fact that Bijnor- Noorpur- Chandpur
route was notified under the sche'me on ~ebruary 12, 1951. Therefore, no
permit could have been granted covering Bijnor- Noorpur route up to Chajlet.
E Be that as it may, the resolution was passed by the Regional Transport
Authority granting permit on the route Muzaffamagar - Jansath, Meerapur.
Dewal, Bijnor and Chajlet covering Bijnor to Noorpur notified route.

The order passed by the Tribunal on January 27, 1996 after remand
was again challenged by Smt. Shashi Goel by filing two writ petitions in the
p High Court at Allahabad. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by the High
Court of Allahabad by its judgment dated April 30, 1996 and the order of the
Tribunal was upheld. The said order dated April 30, 1996 passed by the High
Court of Allahabad was again challenged before this Court in Special Leave
Petition) Nos. 14269 and 14270 of 1996. However, both the Special Leave
Petitions were dismissed after hearing counsel for the parties by order dated
G August 5, 1996. The litigation did not stop here. One Dharmendra Singh filed
Writ Petition No. 37607 of 1995 before the High Court at Allahabad '
challenging grant of 38 permits by resolution dated June 14-15, 1993. This
writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on March 3, 1997. Again a
review application was also filed before the High Court which was also
H dismissed by the High Court by its order dated July 24, 1997. Since permits
U.P.STATEROADTPT.CORPN. v.OMADITYAVERMA [MATHUR,J.] 175

were not granted to 21 grantees, another writ petition being Writ Petition No. A
9990 of 1997 was filed by Omaditya Verma and 20 others before the High
Court of Allahabad seeking direction against the Chairman, State Transport
Authority and Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow for issuing
permits in their favour in pursuance of the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993.
That writ petition was heard and Shri M.P. Dubey, Standing Counsel sought B

- time to file impleadment application and Shri A.O. Saunders also moved an
application for impleadment on behalf of Dharmendra Singh as a respondent.
However, the High Court directed learned counsel for the writ petitioners to
implead the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation - present appellant as a
respondent. However, in the meanwhile on July 10-11, 1997, 16 permits
were issued in favour of grantees. An objection was filed before the Secretary, C
State Transport Authority, U.P. Lucknow, requesting him not to issue permits
because of the stay order passed by High Court at Lucknow bench in Writ
Petition No. 2600 of 1993, same were not vacated by the High Court nor
modified, therefore, issuance ofpennit on July 10-11, 1997 in pursuance of
the resolution passed by the State Transport Authority on June 14-15, 1993 D
was not correct. The Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P. Lucknow
passed an order on July 17, 1997 directing the writ petitioners to deposit their
permits and stop plying the vehicles. The said order dated July 17, 1997
ultimately formed subject matter of the present writ petition before the High
Court. The Division Bench after hearing the parties at length held that there
was no justification for the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow E
to pass the aforesaid. order when the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 has
traveled right up to the Apex Court and attained the seal of approval, The
stay order passed in Writ Petition No. 2600 of 1993 should not have been
utilized by the Secretary, State Transport Authority to recall the permits
issued in favour of the writ petitioners. It was further observed by the High
Court that in· fact objections were frivolous and non-existent because the F
resolution of the Regional Transport Authority passed on June 14-15, 1993
has traveled through series of litigations and final order was passed by the
High Court of Allahabad and subsequently affirmed by the Apex Court, as
such, it was not proper for the State Transport Authority to have disturbed
that order. Secondly, it was i1:lso observed by the High Court that no G
opportunity was afforded to the persons whose permits were recalled without
hearing them or without giving them notice. It was further observed that the
impact of the notification dated September 3, 1994 had been considered at
length and no illegality was found on that basis and the resolution dated June
14-15, 1993 granting permits to the writ petitioners. It was further observed
by the High Court that it was not open to be considered. The attention of the H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.

A High Court was also invited to an order passed in Writ Petition No. 2576 of
1997 by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court on August 12, 1997. In that
writ petition it was observed that in view of the notification dated September
3, 1994 it would not be advisable to grant permit as the route has been
notified. Learned Division Bench held that in view of the earller decision of
the Apex Court in these proceedings the controversy could not be reopened.
B In this connection a reference was made by the High Court to a decision of
this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Prabhakar Bhikaji
Ingle, reported in JT ( 1996) 3 SC 567. In that case it was observed that when
self-same order was confirmed by the Apex Court then the order of the ·
Tribunal stood merged with the order passed by this Court. A similar view
C was also expressed in the case of Narayana Bharma Sanga/ Trust v. Swami
Prakashananda and Ors., reported in JT (1997) 5 SC 100. In the light.of
above facts the Division Bench held that it is not open to the respondents to
challenge the grant of permits on the basis of the notification dated September
3, 1994 when the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal by the Apex
Court by order dated July 21, 1995 and it was also observed that it finally
D decided the issues and operates as res judicata. It was observed that the
resolution passed on. June 14-15, 1993 granting 38 permits more than four
· years have passed yit permission has not been granted. Therefore, direction
was issued to implement the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993. Hence, the
present appeals on grant of special leave petition by this Court.
E
In fact, we have reproduced the relevant portions of the two notifications
in the beginning of th~s judgment. The main purpose of reproduction of both
notifications. was to show that the route in question i.e. Muzaffamagar to
Chajlet covers the notified route from Bijnor to Noorpur which is notified
route since 1951. We fail to understand how permit could be granted by the
F resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 from Muzaffamagar to Chajlet in face of
the notified scheme of 1951 from Bijnor to Noorpur. The scheme was of total
exclusion. In fact the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 is totally unmindful
of the 1952 notification that the route from Bijnor to Noorpur which falls on
the route from Muzaffarnagar to Chhjlet is notified route. This fact was no
G where brought to the notice of the authorities either before the Regional
Transport Authority or State Transport Authority or before the High Court of
Allahabad or for that matter to the Apex Court. This Court by order dated
July 21, 1995 only remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for its decision.
In those appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the present
appellant i.e. UPSRTC was not a party. The dispute before this court was
H between the operators and the authorities and the UPSRTC was not made a
U.P. STATE ROADTPT. CORPN. "· OMADITYA VERMA [MATHUR, J.] 177

party when the whole matter was remanded before the Tribunal. Had the A
UPSRTC been made a party before the Apex Court they would have brought
to the notice of the Apex Court that a portion of the route from Bijnor to
Noorpur is notified route; When the entire matter was remanded back to the
Tribunal by the Apex Court by Order dated 21. 7.1995, another notification
was issued on September 3, 1994 whereby the route from Muzaffamagar to
Bijnor via Jansath, Meerapur and Dewal was also notified. Strangely enough B
UPSRTC was not party before Apex Court or before STAT. It is for the first
time in 1993 before High Court the UPSRTC was impleaded as a respondent.
It is true that when the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 was passed at that
time the route from Muzaffamagar to Bijnor via Jansath Meerapur and Dewal
was not notified but the route from Bijnor to Noorpur was already notified C
on February 12, 1951 and we do not understand how could the Regional
Transport Authority and State Transport Authority ignore this fact that the
portion from Bijnor to Noorpur which falls on the route from Muzaffamagar
to Chajlet was notified, permits were granted on this notified route. This
ignorance appears to be bona fide as nobody seems to have been cognizant
of the notification dated February 12, 1951. The appellant - UPSRTC could D
have been alive to the situation and should have moved the Tribunal and
should have brought this fact to their notice but the appellant did not choose
to take any step. We cannot appreciate their lack of vigilance. Be that as it
may, the authorities issuing permits from Muzaffarnagar to Chajlat should
have at least known that a portion of the route falling from Bijnor to Noorpur E
is a notified route. It is true that this matter has traveled up to the Apex Court
and it has gone through various litigation but nobody brought to the notice
of the authorities that the route from Bijnor to Noorpur is notified one and
no permit could be granted on this route. It is needless to state th[;· once it
is nationalized route, there is prohibition to permit any private vehicle to ply
except by amending the scheme. It is the mandate of the law and that cannot F
be ignored. More so, at the time when this order was passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court the route from Muzaffamagar to Bijnore via Jansath,
Meerapur and Dweal stood notified on September 3, 1994. We regret to say
that the Division Bench of the High Court has overlooked this aspect of the
matter and proceeded to decide the matter on the assumption that the effect G
of this Notification dated Septe'mber 3, 1994 has already been taken into
consideration. We fail to appreciate this aspect. Once the route from
Muzaffamagar to Bijnor via Jansath, Meerapur and Dweal has already been
notified on September 3, 1994 how can the High Court direct the appellant
to grant permit on the aforesaid route.· It is true that when resolution which
was passed on June 14-15, 1993 by then the notification dated September 3, H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.

A 1994 had not come into operation but once the scheme under notification
dated September 3, 1994 came into operation and the whole route from
Muzaffamagar to Bijnore stood notified and the route from Bijnore to Noorpur
was already notified by notification dated February 12, 1951, how can
mandamus be issued by· the High Court directing the authorities to grant
B permits to the 38 operators. This Court while remanding the matter did not ·
go into all these questions. This Court only remanded the matter to· the
Tribunal as disputed questions of facts were involved.·The other special leave ,
/'

petitions were dismissed in limine. That does not amount to merger of the
High Court order with that of this Court's order. The dismissal in limine does
not amount to upholding of the law propounded in the decision sought to be
C appealed against . This is a settled proposition of law now. Reference may
be made to

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar, reported in [ 1986] 4 SCC
146.

D "Held:

The dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-
speaking order does not justify any inference that by necessary ·
implication the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the
merits of the case have been rejected by Supreme .Court. The effect
E of a non-speaking order of dismissal of a special leave petition without
anything more indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must,
by necessary implication, be taken to be that Supreme Court had
decided only that it was not a fit case where special leave should be
granted. It cannot be assumed that it had necessarily decided by
implication all the questions in relation to the merits of the award,
F which was under challenge before Supreme Court in the special leave
petition.

A writ petition is a wholly different and distinct proceeding.
Although questions which can be said to have been decided by
Supreme Court expressly, implicitly or e.ven constructively white
G dismissing the special ieave petition cannot be 'reopened in a
subsequent writ proceeding before the High Court, but neither on the
principle of res judicata nor on any principle of public policy analogous
thereto, would
.
the order of Supreme
. ,
Court. dismissing the special
leave petition operate to bar the trial of identical issues in a separate
H proceeding namely, the writ proceeding before the High Court merely
-- U,P. STATE ROAD TPT. CORPN. v. OMADITYA VERMA (MA THUR, J.)

on the basis of an uncertain assumption that the issues must have
179

A
been decided by Supreme Court at least by implication. The exercise
of discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court to grant leave under
Article 226 is to be guided by established legal principles. It will not
be a sound exercise of that discretion to refuse to consider a writ
petition on its merits solely on the ground that a special leave petition B
filed by the petitioner in the Supreme Court had been dismissed by
a non-speaking order."

Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India and
Anrs., reported in [1989] 4 SCC 187.

" ....... Articles 226 and 136 - Resjudicata - Supreme Court dismissing . C
SLP in /imine - Held, decision of High Court against which the SLP
had been filed would not thereby operate as res judicata - Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11"

P. Nallammal and Anr. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, D
reported in [1999] 6 sec 559.

" ....... Arts. 136 and 141 - Effect of grant/dismissal ofSLP - Dismissal
of SLP does not amount to upholding of the law propounded in the
decision sought to be appealed against"

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Shree Majunatheaware
E
Packing Products & Camphor Works, reported in [1998] I SCC 598.

" ...... Art. 136 - Summary dismissal of SLP - Effect - Held, does not
mean approval of the view taken by the High Court"

This Court while remanding the matter to the Tribunal categorically
F
stated that all these matters should be sent to the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal which shall treat the writ petitions filed in the High Court as appeals
and after hearing all the parties, dispose of -the matters in accordance with
law. This Court never expressed any opinion on the merits of the ca.se
whatsoever. Therefore, the dismissal of SLPs pertaining to the route in question G
by various orders of this Court neither amounts to res judicata nor doec it
amount that order passed by the High Court amounts to upholding the law
propounded in the decision sought to be appealed against. More so, the effect
of these two notifications i.e. February 12, 1951 and September 3, 1994 were
not considered by this Court or High Court or Tribunal or STA.
H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) 3 S.C.R.

A Once a scheme is notified it prohibits the plying of private vehicle
except as permitted by Scheme. Both Schemes nowhere permit operation by
private operators. This is a settled proposition of Jaw that i~ notified Scheme.
private operator can operate except permitted by the Scheme. In this connection
reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Kamataka
B State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrfal/a Khan and Ors., reported in
>
[2002] 2 SCC 560 wherein Their Lordships after considering earlier decisions
of the Constitution Benches observed as under :

"This means that even in those cases where the notified route and
the route applied for run over a common sector, the curtailment by
c virtue of the notified Scheme would be by excluding that portion of
the route or, in other words, the 'road' common to both. The distinction
between 'route' as the notional line and 'road' as the physical track
disappears in the working of Chapter IV-A, because you cannot curtail
the route without curtailing a portion of the road, and the ruling of
the Court to which we have referred, would also show that even if the
D route was different, the area at least would be the same. The ruling
of the Judicial Committee cannot be made applicable to the Motor
Vehicles Act, particularly Chapter IV-A, where the intention is to
exclude private operators completely from running over certain sectors
or routes vested in State Transport Undertakings. In our opinion, ......
E therefore, the appellants were rightly held to be disentitled to run
over those portions of their routes which were notified as part of the
Scheme, Those portions cannot be said to. be different routes, but

F
must be regarded as portions of the routes of the private operators,
from which the private operators !itood excluded under Section 68-
F(2) © {iii) of the Act.
-
In S. Abdul Khader Saheb v., Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal it
was held by this Court that once a Scheme is for total exclusion of
operation of stage carriage services by operators other than the State
Transport Undertaking, the authorities cannot grant permit under
Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act on any portion of a notified
G route. In Mysore SRTC v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal
it was held that it is not permissible to grant permit on a portion of
a notified route which has an effect to ply a stage carriage on the
same line of the notified route excepting an intersection."

H In view of the fact that the route from Bijnor to Noorpur was notified
U.P.STATEROADTPT.CORPN. v.OMADITYAVERMA [MATHUR,J.] 181

way back in 1951, no permit could have been issued in pursuance of the A
resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 and likewise under notification dated
September 3, 1994 when the route from Muzaffamagar to Bijnor had been
notified, no permit could have been granted on the aforesaid route as both
schemes are of total exclusion' Therefore, in view of the law laid down by
this Court in the case of Karna/aka State Road Transport Corporation (Supra),
the question no more remains res integra and it is settled principle of law that B
no private operators could be permitted to operate on a notified route except
by modifing Scheme and after making provisions for the same. ·

- As a result of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that the view taken
by the High Court of Allahabad cannot be sustained and accordingly we
allow all these appeals and set aside the impugned order dated September 26,
1997 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos. 9990,
C

23496, 15746 and 20187 of 1997 and dismiss the same with no order as to
costs.

B.B.B. Appeals allowed. D