Basant Roadways vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal 7 Ors.
- SCC(1986) 4 SCC 504
- Neutral1986 INSC 206
- AIRAIR 1987 SC 116
- SCR[1986] 3 SCR 1002
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Supreme Court will not interfere by way of special leave petition against an interim order made by the High Court. Where Regional Transport Authorities find that there is a grave need for increasing the number of regular services on particular routes in the public interest, they should grant regular permits under section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, either by inviting applications or upon applications made by intending operators, rather than repeatedly granting temporary permits for short periods.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ACT: Constitution of India, Art. 136-Interim orders of High Court-No Interference in Special Leave Petitions. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 57-Practice of granting of temporary permits repeatedly to ply stage carriages deprecated.
HEADNOTE: In a petition for special leave against an interim order of the High Court, ^ HELD: (1) As the special leave petition is filed against an interim order of the High Court, this Court does not propose to interfere. [1003B] (2.1) The practice of granting of temporary permits repeatedly to ply stage carriages for short periods even when it is made out that there is a grave need for increasing the number of regular services on the routes in question in the public interest is deprecated. In many cases this practice has led to undesirable results. [1003B-C] (2.2) The proper action to be taken by the Regional Transport Authorities in such cases is to grant regular permits in accordance with law either by inviting applications for grant of permits or on the applications made by intending operators suo motu under s. 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. [1003C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11638 of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 12th September, 1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 2845 of 1986.
B.K. Rawat, M.K. Dua, Aman Vachher and S.K. Mehta for the Petitioners.
1003 The following Order of Court was delivered ORDER Since this petition is filed against an interim order we do not propose to interfere with the order of the High Court. The Petition is dismissed.
We, however, deprecate the practice of granting of temperory permits repeatedly to ply stage carriages for short periods even when it is made out that there is a grave need for increasing the number of regular services on the routes in question in public interest. In many cases this practice has led to undesirable results. In all such cases the proper action to be taken by the Regional Transport Authorities is to grant regular permits in accordance with law either by inviting applications for grant of permits or on the applications made by intending operators suo motu under section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. We hope that the Regional Transport Authorities will take necessary steps in accordance with law in respect of all the routes to alleviate the suffering of the travelling public.
M.L.A. Petition dismissed. 1004
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free