VIKRAM SHITOLE AND ANR.versusTHE M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS.

'-
     ,.
                               VIKRAM SHITOLE AND ANR.                                    A
                                                v.
                           THE M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
                               CORPORATION AND ORS.

                                     DECEMBER 11, 1996
                                                                                          B
                       [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.]

                  Motor Veh!cles Act, 1939 : Section 68D(3).

                 Notified Route-Approved route published u11der Sectio11 68D(3 }-Sub-      c
          seque11tly "Self Employmellt Sd1eme" framed-{]11der the scheme u11employed
          graduates permitted to operate stage carriages on notified route subject to
          temis a11d conditions-Appellant's pem1it cancelled as he did not comply with
          temis and conditio11s-Writ-Dismissal by High Court-Appeal-Held in a
          notified frozen route no pri.vate operator is entitled to ply the stage carriage-In
          this case, the State Road Transport Corporation had the pennits ob- D
          tained-Therefore, under the notified scheme no one except it shall exclusively
          ply the stage carriages on· the notified route in tenns of the scheme itself-The
          self-employment scheme fherefore, is obviously illegal-Dismissal of writ
          petition by High Court was not vitiated by any error of law.
                                                                                           E
                Brij Mohan Parihar Etc. v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation &:
          Ors. Etc. [1987] 1 SCC 13, referred to.

                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 811 of
          1986.
                                                                                           F
               From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.86 of the Madhya Pradesh
          High Court in Misc. P.No. 572 of 1985.

                  M.N. Krishoamani and Pravir Choudhary for the Appellants.

                  Rajinder Narain & Co. (NP) for the Respondents.                          G
     )

                  The following Order of the Court was delivered :

               This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Madhya
          Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench in Miscellaneous Petition No. 572 of
          1985 dated January 13, 1986.                                                    H
                                             961
    962                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A          The admitted position is that the route in question, i.e., Gwalior to     ·'
    Indore, was notified under Chapter IV-A of Motor Vehicles Act ("Act 4
    of 1939", for short) which has been repealed and re-enacted by Motor
    Vehicles Act, 1988). After the approved route was published under Section
    680(3), a scheme was framed under which unemployed graduates were
    permitted under "self- employment scheme" to operate the stage carriages
B   on the notified route subject to certain terms and conditions. It would
    appear that the appellants did not comply with the said terms and condi-
    tions as a result of which their permits were cancelled by the authorities.
    Calling the action in question the appellants filed .a writ petition. The High
    Court has dismissed the said writ petition. Thus, this appeal by special
C   leave.

            The controversy is no longer res integra. It is settled legal position
    that once notification under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act is
    published in the Gazette, all the pre-existing operators shall cease to
    operate on the frozen routes except in accordance with the terms and
D   conditions mentioned in the scheme itself which is law by itself. If the State
    Road Transport Corporation fails to obtain permit, power has been
    granted to STNRTA to grant temporary permit until S.R.T.C. obtains
    regular permits. In this case, admittedly, the State Road Transport Cor-
    poration had the permits obtained and that, therefore, under the notified
    scheme no one except the State .Road Transport Corporation shall ex-
E   elusively ply the stage carriages on the notified route in terms of the scheme
    itself. The self-employment scheme therefore, is obviously illegal. This
    court in the case of Brij Mohan Parihar Etc. v. M.P. State Road Transport
    Corporation & Ors. Etc. [1987] 1 sec 13, considered this aspect of the
    matter and in paragraph 3 of the judgment it was held that it is not,
    however, permissible under the Act for the Corporation to obtain a permit
F   under Chapter IV-A of the Act and to allow a private operator as its
    nominee to operate under that permit his motor vehicle as a stage carriage
    on the notified route. It cannot be granted permission to collect any money
    either as nomination fees or as royalty or supervision charges. Thus, it
    would be seen that in a notified frozen route no private operator is entitled
G   to ply the stage carriage. Accordingly, we ·hold that dismissal of the
    appellants' writ petition by the High Court is not vitiated by any error of
    law warranting interference.

          The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

H T.N.A.                                                      Appeal dismissed.