U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sandeep Kumar Jain: Supreme Court Rules on Transport Route Permits

The case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sandeep Kumar Jain & Others is a crucial judgment in transport law regarding the issuance of private operator permits on a government-notified route. The Supreme Court examined the legality of granting permits to private bus operators on a nationalized route and reaffirmed that private operators cannot operate on a notified route unless specifically permitted by the scheme.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) challenged the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which had allowed private operators to ply on a route already nationalized under the Uttar Pradesh Transport Scheme.

The respondents in the case were holders of regular state carriage permits awarded by the State Transport Authority (STA) for the Meerut-Mawana-Behsuma-Meeranpur-Bijnore route, which included the Dewal-Bijnore stretch. The respondents had been granted permits in two phases:

On September 4-5, 1989, the State Transport Authority issued 21 permits.
On May 11, 1994, additional permits were granted to other operators.

Initially, these routes were non-notified, meaning private operators could operate freely. However, the State Transport Corporation later included these routes in the nationalization scheme. The U.P. Transport Scheme, published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, aimed to eliminate private operators from designated routes, ensuring state-controlled transport services.

With the nationalization of the Muzaffarnagar-Bijnore and Meerut-Bijnore routes, a legal battle ensued over whether private operators could continue to run services on the Dewal-Bijnore stretch.

Arguments of the Petitioner (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation)

The State Transport Corporation argued that private operators could not be allowed to operate on a notified route once the government had taken over under the nationalization scheme.
They cited the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7306 of 2003, where the Supreme Court had ruled that granting private permits on a nationalized route was illegal.
UPSRTC contended that the permits granted to the respondents were void once the route was nationalized.
They relied on previous Supreme Court decisions that upheld the supremacy of government transport services over private entities on notified routes.

Arguments of the Respondents (Private Operators)

The respondents argued that they were existing operators before the notification and thus had a vested right to continue operations.
They contended that the scheme did not explicitly prohibit private operators from continuing service.
The private operators maintained that their permits had been granted in compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act and could not be revoked arbitrarily.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the arguments and reviewed past judgments, including:

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Omaditya Verma (2005) 4 SCC 424 – Holding that private operators cannot ply on a notified route unless explicitly permitted.
Smt. Kanchan & Ors. vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal – Confirming that the issuance of 48 permits on a notified route was mala fide and invalid.

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The fact remains that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court stood confirmed. The State Transport Authority is justified in relying upon the judgment in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 48624 of 2002 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Civil Appeal Nos. 7305-7306 of 2003.”

The Court emphasized that:

Nationalized routes must be exclusively operated by the state transport entity unless explicitly allowed.
Private operators had no legal right to continue operations once the route was notified.
The State Transport Authority acted lawfully in canceling the permits.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The key directives included:

The 48 permits granted to private operators on the notified Dewal-Bijnore stretch were canceled.
The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation retained exclusive rights to operate on the nationalized route.
The State Transport Authority’s decision to revoke private permits was upheld.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the principle that once a route is nationalized, private operators cannot be permitted to operate unless the scheme allows exceptions. The judgment upholds government control over key transport services, ensuring better regulation and coordination in public transportation.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: U.P. State Road Tran vs Sandeep Kumar Jain & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-09-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Transfers Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category