# SMT. AFSAR JAHAN BEGUM ETC v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1996] 1 S.C.R. 387
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-01-11
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/smt-afsar-jahan-begum-etc-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-etc-13838
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 :
S.102(2}--Approved scheme~od(fication of-Relaxation only to a
distance of 25 Kms. on nationalised routes to private operators under certain
C
conditions and restrictions--Operator on any route intersecting the notified
area to ply the vehicle strictly in conformity with the restrictive corridor
shelte~elaxation meant to subserve the public interest and not to sabotage
the approved scheme.
Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 557,
D
relied on.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 8475 of
1981 Etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
S.K. Gambir, A.K. Pandey, R.P. Singh, H.K. Puri, B.S. Banthia S.K.
Agnihotri, A.K. Singhi (N.P.), T.C. Shanna (NP), Rajinder Narain & Co., for
the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was delivered :
Substitution allowed in W.P. (C) No. 8330/81.
All these writ petitions and appeal are disposed of by common judgment
since common question of law arises for decision is these cases.
Admitted, the routes of which the petitioners/appellants are seeking to
intersect and ply their vehicles are notified routes. The notified routes were
published and became final under Chapter IV-A of Act 4, 1939. The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 introduced Chapter VJ as a special provision relating to the
E
F
G
State transport undertakings. Section 99 authorises preparation and publicaH
387
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] l S.C.R.
"'
A
tion of the proposal regarding road transport service of a State transport
undertaking. , Section 102 deals with cancellation or modification of the
schemes. It provides that the State Government may, at any time, if it consider
necessary in the public interest so to do, modify any approved scheme after
giving : (i) the state transportundertaking; and (ii) any other person who in
B
the opinion of the State Government is likely to be affected by the proposed
modification an opportunity of being heard in respect of the. proposed
modification.
Under sub-section (2), the State Government shall publish the modification proposed under sub-section ( 1) in the State Gazette and in one of
C
the newspapers in the regional languages circulating in the area in which it
is proposed to be covered by such modification together with the date not
being less than 30 days from the publication in the official gazette, the time
and place at which any representation received in this behalf will be heard
by the State Government.
D
E
While the appeals are pending, when it was brought to our notice that
a proposal has been made by the State Government for modification of the
approved schemes, by our order dated 1.11.1995, we have ordered that the
learned counsel appearing for the State should verify and place before the
Court whether the draft modification has been approved and published as
required under Section 102(2) of the Act and also to file an affidavit by a
competent and responsible officer of the necessity to introduce the modification of the approved schemes and the action taken thereon. Pursuant thereto,
the additional affidavit has been filed by K.K. Tiwari, R.T.O., Indore who has
stated that the Government by notification dated 21.2.1991 relaxed only to a
F
distance of 25 kms. on the nationalised route to private operators under certain
conditions and restrictions. The appellants are not entitled to the benefit of
those corridor shelters now given under the modified scheme and relaxation
granted under Section 102(2) of the Act. The petitioners, therefore, cannot
claim the benefit of relaxation. They have stated in the notification thus :
G
H
"'And, Whereas, the State Government in view of additional demand
of transport services considers necessary in the public interest to allow
private operators to ply on hire or reward stage carriages on routes
covered by the said Schemes and for that purpose desires to modify
all the said Schemes in the manner as shown in the Scheduled below:
-I
,
_,
I
-'
A.J. BEGUM (SMT.) v. STATE

## Text

SMT. AFSAR JAHAN BEGUM ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC.
JANUARY 11, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 :
S.102(2}--Approved scheme~od(fication of-Relaxation only to a
distance of 25 Kms. on nationalised routes to private operators under certain
C
conditions and restrictions--Operator on any route intersecting the notified
area to ply the vehicle strictly in conformity with the restrictive corridor
shelte~elaxation meant to subserve the public interest and not to sabotage
the approved scheme.
Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 557,
D
relied on.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 8475 of
1981 Etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
S.K. Gambir, A.K. Pandey, R.P. Singh, H.K. Puri, B.S. Banthia S.K.
Agnihotri, A.K. Singhi (N.P.), T.C. Shanna (NP), Rajinder Narain & Co., for
the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was delivered :
Substitution allowed in W.P. (C) No. 8330/81.
All these writ petitions and appeal are disposed of by common judgment
since common question of law arises for decision is these cases.
Admitted, the routes of which the petitioners/appellants are seeking to
intersect and ply their vehicles are notified routes. The notified routes were
published and became final under Chapter IV-A of Act 4, 1939. The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 introduced Chapter VJ as a special provision relating to the
E
F
G
State transport undertakings. Section 99 authorises preparation and publicaH
387
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] l S.C.R.
"'
A
tion of the proposal regarding road transport service of a State transport
undertaking. , Section 102 deals with cancellation or modification of the
schemes. It provides that the State Government may, at any time, if it consider
necessary in the public interest so to do, modify any approved scheme after
giving : (i) the state transportundertaking; and (ii) any other person who in
B
the opinion of the State Government is likely to be affected by the proposed
modification an opportunity of being heard in respect of the. proposed
modification.
Under sub-section (2), the State Government shall publish the modification proposed under sub-section ( 1) in the State Gazette and in one of
C
the newspapers in the regional languages circulating in the area in which it
is proposed to be covered by such modification together with the date not
being less than 30 days from the publication in the official gazette, the time
and place at which any representation received in this behalf will be heard
by the State Government.
D
E
While the appeals are pending, when it was brought to our notice that
a proposal has been made by the State Government for modification of the
approved schemes, by our order dated 1.11.1995, we have ordered that the
learned counsel appearing for the State should verify and place before the
Court whether the draft modification has been approved and published as
required under Section 102(2) of the Act and also to file an affidavit by a
competent and responsible officer of the necessity to introduce the modification of the approved schemes and the action taken thereon. Pursuant thereto,
the additional affidavit has been filed by K.K. Tiwari, R.T.O., Indore who has
stated that the Government by notification dated 21.2.1991 relaxed only to a
F
distance of 25 kms. on the nationalised route to private operators under certain
conditions and restrictions. The appellants are not entitled to the benefit of
those corridor shelters now given under the modified scheme and relaxation
granted under Section 102(2) of the Act. The petitioners, therefore, cannot
claim the benefit of relaxation. They have stated in the notification thus :
G
H
"'And, Whereas, the State Government in view of additional demand
of transport services considers necessary in the public interest to allow
private operators to ply on hire or reward stage carriages on routes
covered by the said Schemes and for that purpose desires to modify
all the said Schemes in the manner as shown in the Scheduled below:
-I
,
_,
I
-'
A.J. BEGUM (SMT.) v. STATE
389
SCHEDULE
In each of the said schemes, the following words figures and
brackets shall be added at the end, namely :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Scheme, the private
operators may be pennitted to ply stage-Carriages for hire or reward
subject to the following conditions, namely :
(I) Limit of exemption on notified route shall not exceed 25 Kifometers.
(2) The private operators shall ply the stage carriages over the
distance, other than the distance of the notified routes which shall not
be less than twice, the distance of the notified route covered by the
permit;
(3) Calculations of limit of exemption of 25 Kilometers on notified
route shall be made on the basis of total;
(4) This exemption shall be application to notified routes under all
Schemes, even though the Schemes might have been implemented
after 1979 ;
(5) The Private Operators shall not pick-up or set down passengers
on the notified route."
In Adarash Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC
557 a Constitution Bench of this Court considered Section 68-C, 68-0(3) and
68-FF read with Section 2(28-A) of the Act 4, 1939 and had held that :
"Once a scheme is published under Section 68-D in relation to any
area or route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete
or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State
Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or notified
route except as provided in the scheme itself. A necessary consequence of these provisions is that no private operate can operate his
vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route
unless authorised so to do by the terms of the scheme itself. He may
not operate on any part or portion of the notified route or area on the
mere ground that the pennit as originally granted to him covered the
notified route or area".
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A
In this view of the matter, the only relaxation from the frozen notified
route or area from the scheme is, as provided in the scheme itself. Every
operator on any route intersecting the notified route, has, of necessity, to ply
the vehicle strictly in conformity with the restrictive corridor shelter and no
more. The relaxation is not meant to sabotage the approved scheme but to
B
subserve public interest.
Shri Gambhir, learned counsel contended that in view of the relaxation
upto a distance of 25 kms. been provided in the Scheme as modified and
notified under Section 102(2) of the Act, all the petitioners are entitled to ply
in the terms thereof. We cannot give any direction or relief to the petitioners
C
in these writ petitions. It is seen that the Government having approved the
routes, have exercised the power under Section 102(2) of the Act and given
benefit by intersecting the approved routes only upto a distance of 25 kms.
without picking up or setting down the passengers on the notified route,
strictly subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Under those
D
circumstances the petitioners cannot be given any relief. But if they have any
right under the modified scheme, then that would be a matter appropriately to
be gone into by the RTA or STA, as the case may be, after due notice to the
State Transport Undertaking and all other interested persons.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal,
E
is also dismissed. No costs.
G.N.
Petitions dismissed.