SHARAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.D. Saunders, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Samir Sharma learned counsel for respondent No. 3, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and have perused the record. With consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioners are private operators who have been granted permits to ply their stage carriage vehicles on the route between Panethi- Jalali-Baria-Charra-Dadon-Shankra extended from Alampur to Atrauli via Hardoi-Pali- Tochi- Bijauli (hereinafter referred to as "route in question"). They are aggrieved by the consideration of the application of the respondent No. 3, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for grant of permit on the route in question. They have thus filed this writ petition for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Regional Transport Authority, Aligarh not to grant or issue any permit to the respondent No. 3 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for the route in question.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is in two fold. Firstly, once certain routes are notified for U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, and others routes are open for the private operators as non notified routes, the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation cannot be granted permit for such non notified routes. The other submission of Sri Saunders is that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is unable to provide their buses on the notified routes and for that they have hired private buses to operate on such notified routes under their supervision and control. He, thus, contends that since the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation cannot cater to the demand of the traveling public even on the notified routes, they should not be permitted to operate on non notified routes where the private operators alone be permitted to ply the buses after getting valid permits from the Transport Authority.

(3.) Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for contesting respondent No. 3 has submitted that the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 20.12.2005 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76001 of 2005, Smt. Jameela Begum and another v. State of U.P and others. It is thus submitted that the writ petition challenging the consideration of application of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for grant of permit for non notified routes would not be maintainable. With regard to other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation cannot cater to the demand of the travelling public and for that they have to hire the vehicles of private operators, Sri Samir Sharma has submitted that once the same is permissible under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 103 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, inserted by U.P. Act 5 of 1993, the buses plying under the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation under an agreement would be permissible and can operate on the notified routes.