SUMER CHAND SHARMA & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P AND ANR. ETC.ETC.

CllINNAPPA REDDY, J. The petitioners in these petitions and special leave petitions held permits stage carri.ages over various routes in Uttar Pradesh, of which routes were parts of routes which were nationalised in the Fifties. The nationalisation schemes made no for any private operator plying any stage C>Jrriage over any part of the nationalised routes. Operation of stage by private operators was totally excluded. The result from the respective dates of nationalisation, it permissible to permit any private operator to ply carriage on any sector of the nationalised route. However, virtue of sec. lO(l)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Road Services (Development) Act, IX of 1955, these several tioners were allowed to ply their stage carriages on of their routes including the common sectors. Pradesh Road Transport Services (Development) Act, repealed by Central Act 56 of 1969. Act 56 of 1969 effect from April 1, 1971. Section 76 of Act 56 of 1969 was inserted into the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 as s. permissions or exemptions granted as well as things actions taken under the repealed enactment so far as they were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The sion granted under sec. lO(l)(c) of U.P. Act IX of patently inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the permission, ceased to be effective from 1.4.1971, the date of repeal the 1955 Act. Therefore, it was no longer permissible private operators to ply their vehicles on the common from 1.4.1971 onwards. Despite the statutory prohibition against any private operator plying a stage carriage part of the nationalised route in the absence of a provision in the scheme of nationalisation, it appears that a grew up (we have borrowed the word 'Practice' from one of judgments of Allahabad High Court which was cited before us) in Uttar Pradesh of permitting private operators to stage carriages over sectors of nationalised provided they did not set down or pick up passangers point on the colllOOn sectors. The "Practice" was wholly unauthorised and without any legal sanctions whatsoever. However in 1976, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature enacted the Pradesh Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 1976 to provide for the grant of authorisation to holders of stage carriage permits to ply their stage carriages over conunon sectors. was provided by sec. 5 of the Act. Sec. 5 was interpreted the court in Tr-port Company v. State of Pndesh, A.I.R. (1984] S.C. 953 to mean that the operator seeking an authorisation should hold a permit on the date notification. Section 1(3) of the Act makes the provisions the Act applicable 'only in relation to schemes approved purporting to be approved, areas and routes notified or porting to be notified under Chapter IV A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 as amended in its application to Uttar (hereinafter referred to as Principal Act) and to issued under Principal Act before the co11111encement of Act.' Basing their submissions on s.1(3) of the 1976 Act, Shri S,N, Kacker and Shri K.K. Venugopal learned counsel for tioners urged that the petitioners were entitled to authorisations from the co~tent authorities under s.5 Act, if they had permits to ply stage-carriages on the routes having COlllllOn sectors on July l, 1976 the date of commencement of Act 27 of 1976. They complained that on the basis observations of this court in Transport ColipaDJ State of Uttar Pradesh, (supra) their applications for of their authorisations had been wrongly rejected ground that they did not possess permits on the dates nationalisation notifications. do not see any force submission of the learned counsel. As pointed out by the repeal of Act 9 of 1955 it was no longer permissible the transport authorities to permit the private operators ply their stage carriages over the sectors, in the of areas and routes which were nationalised to the complete exclusion of private operator. If by reason of the unauthorised and unlawful practice which had grown up in Uttar Pradesh, private operators had been allowed to ply vehicles over sectors, despit~ statutory prohibition, that would surely entitle the operators to obtain authorisations under the 1976 Act. Whatever doubts there might have been earlier, it is now settled by the decision of Constitution Bench 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 ex cl us ion of private operators, 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 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 ~ 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- • .'.:

pp. 768–770, margin B

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. S.R. Petitions dismissed.

p. 770