JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. The Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has been constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. A proposal for nationalization of route Shergarh Gaht-Orai-Divyapur-Tirva under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was published in the official gazette on 20.11.1961. The above route was notified for exclusive operation of the State Transport undertaking by a scheme published under Section 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 vide notification No. 480-65 dated 26.8/1970, published in official gazette on 5.9.1970,
2. Under clause 4 and 8 of the aforesaid scheme, the route was reserved for exclusive operation of the Corporation and the permits of the existing private operators, including that of respondent No. 1 Smt. Shanti Devi, were cancelled. Writ Petition No. 4707 of 1970 was filed before this Court Challenging the scheme of nationalization of the route in question. An interim order was granted in favour of the existing private operators by this Court on 17.10.1970. On the basis of the aforesaid interim order, permits to 23 existing operators were renewed from time to time.
3. In view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in 1974 Standing Counsel 1940, the transport authorities stopped the plying of the private operators on the aforesaid notified route. The State of U.P., however, came up with U.P. Act No. 27 of 1976. Under Section 5 of the said Act, it was provided that private operators, holding permit on the notified route on the relevant date, would be granted authorization by the competent authority, for plying of their vehicles on the notified route, on payment of administrative and other charges to the Corporation. In order to keep the record straight it may be noticed that respondent No. 1 was also one of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4707 of 1970. However, she had withdrawn her name from the said writ petition because of grant of compensatory permit by the State respondent on another route.
4. Writ Petition No. 4707 of 1970 (wherein the scheme itself was challenged) was finally disposed of, in light of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 360 of 1978, vide judgment and order of this Court dated 9.12.1997 with liberty to the petitioners to apply for modification of the scheme. The State Government published a modified scheme after deciding the objections of the Corporation on 18.2.1999. Because of the modification published on 18.2.1999, petitioner moved an application in the year 2003 for grant of stage carriage permit on the route covered by the modified scheme in question.
5. The application so filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that the petitioner had already obtained the benefit of compensatory permit prior to decision of the writ petition and had, accordingly, withdrawn her name from the writ petition. Therefore, she cannot be treated to be holder of valid permit, on the relevant date, under the modified scheme of nationalization.
6. Against the said order of the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, petitioner filed Appeal No. 13 of 2004. The appeal so filed by the petitioner has been allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal U.P., Lucknow vide order dated 25.4.2005. It has been recorded that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithlesh Garg v. Union of India and Ors. , grant of permits has been liberalize, therefore the application of the petitioner, who was earlier holding stage carriage permit on the route in question (although she got the permit transferred in the name of her son) is entitled to another permit of stage carriage under the modified scheme. This order of the Appellate Tribunal is under challenge in the present writ petition.
7. Counsel for the petitioner Sri Samir Sharma has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in ALR 1991(18) SC 9; Har Pal Singh Beniwal v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and Anr. which in turn based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adarsh Travel Bus Service v. State of U.P. and Ors. for the purpose that once a scheme has been published under Section 68-D of the Act in relation to any route, no permit can be granted except in accordance with the scheme. Therefore in the facts of the case Transport Authorities cannot grant any permit contrary to the modified scheme to private operators.
8. Sri A.D. Saunders Advocate on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is in conformity with the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithlesh Garg (supra) and there being liberalization of grant of permit, respondent No. 1 fulfills all the criteria for grant of permit in accordance with the modified scheme, therefore no interference is called for against the appellate order.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
10. The nationalization of the route in question is not in dispute. The modification approved in respect of the said scheme dated 18th January, 1989, which is relevant for all purpose reads as follows:
The approved scheme in regard to routes mentioned in column-3 is modified to the extent that on the said routes, the private bus operators having valid permits and the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation shall be allowed to operate their vehicles simultaneously.
11. It is also not in dispute that the respondent, in fact, after filing the writ petition against the original nationalization scheme, withdrew her name from the writ petition after being offered compensatory permit, which she had admittedly transferred in the name of her son.
12. In such circumstances, the petitioner having availed the benefit, which was made available to her subsequent to nationalization of the route by getting a compensatory permit, cannot be said in the eyes of law to be a private bus operator having valid permit on the nationalized route on the date modified scheme was notified i.e. 5th May, 1998.
13. In such circumstances, the application for grant of permit as made by the petitioner in the year, 2003 was totally misconceived. The application was rightly rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of Har Pal Singh (supra) has specifically laid down that permits can be granted only in accordance with the scheme notified (which necessarily included the modified scheme) .This Court has come to a conclusion that the petitioner was not a private bus operator having valid permit on the date modified scheme was notified and further since the petitioner, having already availed the benefit of compensatory permit due to nationalization of the route in question at the initial stage itself, was not entitled for any second permit on the nationalized route on the strength of modified scheme. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is totally misconceived and legally not justified and accordingly the order of Tribunal dated 25.4.2005 passed in Appeal No. 13 of 2004 is hereby quashed.
Writ petition is allowed.