- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard Shri Sameer Sharma, learned Coun sel for U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short, the Corporation), for the petitioner and Shri R. N. Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri H. P. Dubey and Shri G. K. Malviya for the private respondents. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State respondents. With the consent of the parties the matter was heard and is being finally decided.
(2.) THE Corporation is aggrieved by the decision of the State Transport Appel late Tribunal, U. P. Lucknow (Appellate Tribunal) in Revision Nos. 88 to 101 of 2005 under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by which the revisions were partly allowed and that whiie setting aside the order of the State Transport Authority, U. P. Lucknow dated 9. 6. 2005 the regular stage carriage permits were rehewed for another usual term of five years with effect from their expiry, on usual terms and conditions, for the portion not covered under the scheme dated 29. 5. 1993, after curtailing the portion overlapping the portion under the scheme dated 29. 5. 1993. The route Meerut Muzaffar nagar to Bamanhedi was notified for exclusive operation by the Corporation by notification dated 12. 5. 1951. Similarly the routes Saharanpur Gagalhedi was notified on 19. 6. 1962. The route Saharanpur-Haridwar via Gagalhedi was also notified for exclusive operation of the Corporation by notification dated 6. 10. 1956. In the year 1968 a concrete bridge was constructed on river Yamuna between Saharanpur and Yamuna Nagar and a reciprocal agreement was notified between State of Haryana and State of U. P. on 15. 11. 1969 for plying vehicles on inter State routes between the two States. Clause 13 (7) of the agreement provides; "it is agreed that as far as possible, the Stage Carriage Services, agreed upon in this agreement may be operated by the respective nationalised undertaking of both the States". Awrit petition No. 4195 of 1968 was filed against the clause of reciprocity in which an order was passed on 12. 1. 1970, the operative portion of which provides: "in the view what has been stated above it is declared that the Regional Transport Authority Meerut and Dehradun, are not bound by, and are not obliged to give effect to, clause VII of paragraph 13 of the reciprocal agreement and they are directed to exercise their all individual judgment, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in deciding application for permits which are pending before them. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to cost. Shri Sameer Sharrrra submits that in Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1974 SC 1940 the Supreme Court held that private operators could not be granted permits on any foutes even a part of which overlaps a nationalist route, and that private operators cannot be allowed to ply on the notified routes, even with corridor restrictions. The judgment was followed with approval in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U. P. , AIR 1986 SC 319 and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashralah Khan, (2002) 2 SCC 560. The overlapping and intersection on nationalised route is thus not permissible.
(3.) A reciprocal agreement between State of Haryana and State of U. P. was notified on14. 10. 1983 according to which the private operators were allowed four trips on Meerut-Ambala inter-State route. This Meerut-Ambala route overlaps the following nationalist portions i. e. (a) part of Meerut- Muzaffarnagar-Bamanhedi, which overlaps the Delhi Dehradun scheme notified on 12. 2. 1951; (b) part of Meerut Muzaffarnagar-Bamanhedi overlaps the Delhi Hardwar scheme notified on 12. 2. 1951; and (c) part of Saharanpur Gagalhedi-Haridwar, which overlapsthe scheme notified on 12. 2. 1951. Shri Sameer Sharma would submit that the scheme of nationalisation is a law and that inter-State agreement do not override a scheme of nationalisation, and thus no permits can be issued to private operators on any of the routes, the part of which overlaps the notified routes. Even the reciprocal agreements are not operative in contravention of the nationalised schemes.;