Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.)THIS special appeal by Sardar Surendra Singh is directed against the judgment of Oak, J. dated 8- 14963, dismissing writ petition No. 1566 of 1961 filed by the appellant.
(2.)THERE is a route Meerut-Chhaprauli (hereinafter referred to as route No. 1). This route is divided into three parts (1) Meerut-Baghpat, (2) Baghpat-Baraut, and (3) Baraut-Chhaprauli. The portion Baghpat- Baraut forms part of another routes also, that is, Delhi-Saharanpur route (hereinafter referred to as route No. 2). THERE is yet a third route Dehradun-Luchman Jhoola route (hereinafter referred to as route No 3).
The Delhi-Saharanpur route was nationalised under the provisions of Chap. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). When the notification under Section 68-C of the Act was issued in respect of this route, it was proposed to place some restriction on the right of the appellant to pick up passengers between Baghpat and Baraut, though the appellant was to he allowed to pass that route. However when the notification under Section 68-D was issued, this restriction was withdrawn, with the result that the appellant continued to ply his stage carriage on the Meerut-Chhaprauli route even after the nationalisation of Delhi-Saharanpur route. Route No. 3 was also nationalised. The respondents Nos. 1 to 13 (in the writ petition) plied stage carriages in the Hardwar zone, which right they lost on account of the nationalisation of route No. 3. The transport authorities under the law had to compensate those respondents for the loss of the right to ply in the Hardwar zone. Consequently the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, (hereinafter referred to as the R. T A.) passed resolution No. 107 offering respondents Nos. 1 to 13 route No. 1 by way of compensation under Section 68-C of the Act. The offer having been accepted, permits were issued to them for plying stage carriages on that route.

By means of writ petition No. 1566 of 1961 resolution No. 107 passed by the R. T. A. was challenged. In the writ petition as many as fifteen grounds were taken Mr. Kacker, the learned counsel for the appellant, however, pressed only one. He did not formally abandon the others, but did not press them in view of Mohammad Jafar v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, Writ No. 1870 of 1961. dated 5-10- 1962 (All). In respect of route No. 2 a notification under Section 68-D was issued by the State Government on 29-9-1959. Clause (4) of that notification reads: "Persons other than the State Transport Undertaking will not be permitted to ply any Road Transport Service on the route or portions thereof specified in Clause (2) above except those noted below; ..................."

(3.)THE names of the appellant and 52 other operators were noted below the notification and there was a remark that "for Meerut-Baghpat-Baraut-Chhaprauli-Ramalakakripur route who shall be allowed to ply on Baghpat-Baraut portion of the route mentioned in Clause (2) above" In Clause (4) of the notification it was clearly stated: (1) that the route had been nationalised, (2) that other vehicles would not be permitted to ply on the route and (3) that the 53 operators would continue to ply on the Baghpat-Baraut route.
The submission that was made on behalf of the appellant before Oak, J. was that resolution No. 107 passed by the R. T. A. had the effect of modifying the Government notification dated 29-9-1959 issued under Section 68-D of the Act. This submission did not find favour with Oak, J. and he dismissed the writ petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.