2005 (4) TMI 620 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court dismisses writ petitions, deems permits on notified routes illegal, upholds exclusion of private operators.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman Versus Omaditya Verma & Ors.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman Versus Omaditya Verma & Ors. - 2005 AIR 2250, 2005 (3) SCR 166, 2005 (4) SCC 424, 2005 (4) JT ... Issues Involved:1. Notification and validity of route schemes.2. Issuance and recall of permits.3. Legal proceedings and decisions by various courts and tribunals.4. Applicability of the principle of res judicata.5. Prohibition of private operators on notified routes.Detailed Analysis:1. Notification and Validity of Route Schemes:The case revolves around the notification of routes under different schemes. The route from Bijnore Noorpur-Chandpur was first notified on February 12, 1952. Another scheme for the route from Bijnore to Muzaffarnagar was notified on October 15, 1962, with operations commencing on November 15, 1962. A subsequent notification on September 28, 1977, and a modification on September 3, 1994, further defined the routes. The relevant portions of these notifications were crucial in determining the legality of the permits issued.2. Issuance and Recall of Permits:The State Transport Authority of U.P. granted 38 regular stage carriage permits on June 14-15, 1993, for the route Muzaffarnagar-Chhajlet via Gangabridge, Bijnor, and Noorpur. However, only 11 permits were initially issued. Following a series of writ petitions and interim orders, the Secretary, State Transport Authority, issued and later recalled these permits, leading to further litigation. The High Court's order dated September 26, 1997, directed the issuance of permits to all grantees, which was challenged by UPSRTC.3. Legal Proceedings and Decisions by Various Courts and Tribunals:The initial writ petitions challenged the issuance of permits and were decided by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which quashed the Secretary's order and directed the issuance of permits. This decision was appealed, leading to a remand by the Supreme Court to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). The STAT's decision was again contested, resulting in multiple writ petitions and special leave petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court. The High Court's decisions were ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court, which highlighted the oversight regarding the notified routes.4. Applicability of the Principle of Res Judicata:The Supreme Court clarified that the principle of res judicata did not apply in this case. The dismissal of SLPs in limine does not amount to upholding the High Court's decisions. The Court referenced several precedents to establish that non-speaking orders of dismissal do not imply a decision on the merits of the case. Therefore, the High Court's orders did not merge with the Supreme Court's orders, and the issues could be reconsidered.5. Prohibition of Private Operators on Notified Routes:The Supreme Court emphasized that once a route is notified under a scheme, private operators cannot be permitted to operate on that route unless the scheme is amended. The 1952 notification for the Bijnor-Noorpur route and the 1994 notification for the Muzaffarnagar-Bijnor route were both schemes of total exclusion, prohibiting the issuance of permits to private operators. The Court cited the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation case to reinforce this principle.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order dated September 26, 1997, and dismissed the writ petitions. The Court held that the issuance of permits on the notified routes was illegal and could not be sustained. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to notified schemes and the prohibition of private operators on such routes without proper amendments to the schemes.