TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds nationalization of transport route, private permits deemed illegal</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the nationalization of the Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route, granting exclusive rights to the U.P. State Road Transport ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the nationalization scheme for the Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route.2. Legality of permits granted to private operators on nationalized routes.3. Effect of the delay in approving the draft scheme.4. Applicability of Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.Summary:1. Validity of the Nationalization Scheme:The Supreme Court upheld the nationalization of the Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route, stating that the approved scheme dated September 29, 1959, continues to be valid. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has the exclusive right to ply vehicles on this route, and the scheme operates to the total exclusion of every private operator except the 50 operators whose objections were upheld by the High Court and merged in the judgment of this court in Jeevan Nath Bahl's case.2. Legality of Permits Granted to Private Operators:The court held that the grant of permits to private operators under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the nationalized routes is illegal and without jurisdiction. The court emphasized that no private operator has the right to apply for and obtain permits to ply stage carriages on the approved or notified routes or areas or portions thereof.3. Effect of the Delay in Approving the Draft Scheme:The court noted that the delay in approving the draft scheme dated February 26, 1959, was an abuse of the process of law, creating a monopoly in favor of the 50 existing operators. The fresh draft scheme dated February 13, 1986, had not lapsed and would continue to be in operation, confined only to the 50 operators. The court also highlighted that the 50 operators had been running their stage carriages by abusing the process of the court and forfeited their right to a hearing of their objections.4. Applicability of Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:The court held that the draft scheme dated February 13, 1986, did not lapse under Section 100(4) of the Act. The High Court and the hearing authority had wrongly concluded that the draft scheme stood lapsed. The court clarified that the draft scheme published under Section 68-C of the repealed Act would stand lapsed only if it was not approved within one year from the date when the Act came into force, i.e., July 1, 1989.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the grant of permits to private operators on the nationalized routes was quashed. The hearing authority was directed to lodge the objections of the 50 operators, and the competent authority was instructed to approve the draft scheme of 1986 within 30 days and publish it in the gazette. The permits granted to the 50 operators or any others would stand canceled from that date, and no permits would be renewed. The U.P. State Transport Corporation was directed to obtain the required additional permits and provide transport service immediately upon the publication of the approved draft scheme.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
