BASANT ROADWAYS v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: E.S. Venkataramiah
G.L. Oza
Judgment Date: 1986-09-30
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed; Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court’s interim order. It deprecated the practice of granting temporary permits for stage carriages and directed RTAs to grant regular permits under s.57(2) of the MV Act to alleviate public suffering.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; no interference with High Court order; guidance to RTAs to grant regular permits under law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Basant Roadways

Respondents

State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B.K. Rawat
• M.K. Dua
• Aman Vachher
• S.K. Mehta

Case Synopsis & Summary

Basant Roadways challenged an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by seeking Special Leave in a petition before the Supreme Court. The Court notes that the petition is filed against an interim order of the High Court and states that it does not propose to interfere with that order, disposing of the petition. The judgment underscores the limited scope of Special Leave Petitions when directed at interlocutory High Court orders. A central policy concern addressed is the practice of granting temporary permits repeatedly to operate stage carriages for short periods even where a grave public need exists to increase regular services. The Court deprecates such practice, warning that it has led to undesirable results in many cases. It directs the Regional Transport Authorities to act in conformity with law to grant regular permits, either by inviting applications or suo motu under section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in order to alleviate the suffering of the travelling public. The decision emphasizes that regularization of services should be pursued through proper statutory processes to ensure public interest is protected. The petition is accordingly dismissed, with a view toward more orderly and lawful grant of permits to enhance public transportation services.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Art. 136Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 57(2)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Not detailed in the excerpt; the petition challenged an interim High Court order and sought Special Leave. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, choosing not to interfere with the High Court’s interim ruling.

Contentions of Respondents

Not detailed in the excerpt; no substantive respondent arguments are recorded in the provided text.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A B ## c D BASANT ROADWAYS _v._ STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS. SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND G.L OZA, JJ.] _Constitution of India, Art. 136--lnterim orders of High_ _Court-_ _No Interference in Special Leave Petitions._ _Motor Vehicles Act,_ _1939,_ _s._ _57-Practice_ _of granting_ _of tem-_ _porary permits repeatedly to ply stage carriages deprecated._ In a petition for special leave against an interim order of the High Co,nrt, HELD: (1) As the special leave petition is filed against an interim order of the High Court, this Court does not propose to interfere. I 1003B] ~- # (2-1) The practice of granting of temporary permits repeatedly to E 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. I I003B-C] (2.2) The proper action to be taken by the Regional Transport F _ Authorities in such cases is to grant regular permits in accordance with ### law either by inviting applications for grant of permits or,on the appli- -1 cations made by intending operators _suo motu_ under s. 57(2) of the " Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. I 1003C-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition G (Civil) No. 11638 of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 12th September, 1986 of the Mad\lya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 2845of1986. B.K. Rawat, M.K. Dua, Aman Vachher and S.K. Mehta for the H P.etitioners. 1002 A B ### c D· E _**'1'**_ BASANf ROADWAYS _v._ STATE TRANSPORT 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 st&ge 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.**