TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation dated 3rd September, 1994 after hearing objections, Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor route of Meerut region i.e. Muzaffarngar via Jansath, Meerapur, Dewal instead of via Bhopa and Morna and Rawlighat. As a result of these two aforesaid schemes the entire route, Muzaffarnagar Jansath, Meerapur, Dewal to Bijnore stood notified. Therefore, these two schemes are the subject matter of the present litigation. Relevant portions of these two notifications i.e. Notification dated February 12, 1952 and September 3, 1994 are reproduced herein below. These civil appeals on grant of special leave have been filed against the common order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated September 26,1997 whereby the High Court allowed four writ petitions i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 9990, 15746, 20187 23496 of 1997 and set aside the order dated July 17, 1990 and quashed the same and directed the Secretary, State Transport Authority, State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to issue permit to all grantees who have not been issued permits on the basis of the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 forthwith and without any delay. Aggrieved against this common order the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te via Jansath-Meerapur. The order passed by Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow on July 31, 1993 was challenged by one Smt. Saima Jamal in a writ petition being Writ Petition No.4250 of 1994 at Lucknow Bench of the High Court. Another writ petition being Writ Petition No.7875 of 1994 was filed by one Sanjeev Kumar challenging the order passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow on July 31, 1993. A subsequent writ petition being Writ Petition No.6774 of 1995 was also filed by one Smt. Shashi Goel challenging the order passed by the Chairman, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow on February 2, 1995. The two writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 7875 of 1994 and Writ Petition No.6774 of 1995 filed before the Allahabad High Court were decided by the Division Bench by its order dated May 5, 1995 and order dated July 31, 1993 passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow and the order dated February 2, 1995 passed by the Chairman, State Transport Authority, U.P. were quashed and the State Transport Authority was directed to pass a specific order indicating the route for which the permit was granted in the meeting of June 14- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Authority was not hit by the notified route. But it appears that perhaps inadvertently all the parties were totally oblivious of the fact that Bijnor- Noorpur- Chandpur route was notified under the scheme on February 12, 1952. Therefore, no permit could have been granted covering Bijnor- Noorpur route up to Chajlet. Be that as it may, the resolution was passed by the Regional Transport Authority granting permit on the route Muzaffarnagar Jansath, Meerapur. Dewal, Bijnor and Chajlet covering Bijnor to Noorpur notified route. The order passed by the Tribunal on January 27, 1996 after remand was again challenged by Smt. Shashi Goel by filing two writ petitions in the High Court at Allahabad. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court of Allahabad by its judgment dated April 30, 1996 and the order of the Tribunal was upheld. The said order dated April 30, 1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad was again challenged before this Court in Special Leave Petition ) Nos. 14269 and 14270 of 1996. However, both the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed after hearing counsel for the parties by order dated August 5, 1996. The litigation did not stop here. One Dharmendra Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits issued in favour of the writ petitioners. It was further observed by the High Court that in fact objections were frivolous and non-existent because the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority passed on June 14-15, 1993 has traveled through series of litigations and final order was passed by the High Court of Allahabad and subsequently affirmed by the Apex Court, as such, it was not proper for the State Transport Authority to have disturbed that order. Secondly, it was also observed by the High Court that no opportunity was afforded to the persons whose permits were recalled without hearing them or without giving them notice. It was further observed that the impact of the notification dated September 3, 1994 had been considered at length and no illegality was found on that basis and the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 granting permits to the writ petitioners. It was further observed by the High Court that it was not open to be considered. The attention of the High Court was also invited to an order passed in Writ Petition No.2576 of 1997 by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court on August 12, 1997. In that writ petition it was observed that in view of the notification dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated July 21, 1995 only remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for its decision. In those appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the present appellant i.e. UPSRTC was not a party. The dispute before this court was between the operators and the authorities and the UPSRTC was not made a party when the whole matter was remanded before the Tribunal. Had the UPSRTC been made a party before the Apex Court they would have brought to the notice of the Apex Court that a portion of the route from Bijnor to Noorpur is notified route. When the entire matter was remanded back to the Tribunal by the Apex Court by Order dated 21.7.1995, another notification was issued on September 3, 1994 whereby the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor via Jansath, Meerapur and Dewal was also notified. Strangely enough UPSRTC was not party before Apex Court or before STAT. It is for the first time in 1993 before High Court the UPSRTC was impleaded as a respondent. It is true that when the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 was passed at that time the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor via Jansath Meerapur Dewal was not notified but the route from Bijnor to Noorpur was already notified on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mandamus be issued by the High Court directing the authorities to grant permits to the 38 operators. This Court while remanding the matter did not go into all these questions. This Court only remanded the matter to the Tribunal as disputed questions of facts were involved. The other special leave petitions were dismissed in limine. That does not amount to merger of the High Court order with that of this Court's order. The dismissal in limine does not amount to upholding of the law propounded in the decision sought to be appealed against . This is a settled proposition of law now. Reference may be made to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Bihar reported in 1986 (4) SCC 146 Held: The dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that by necessary implication the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by Supreme Court. The effect of a non-speaking order of dismissal of a special leave petition without anything more indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary implication, be taken to be that Supreme Court had decided only that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titions filed in the High Court as appeals and after hearing all the parties, dispose of the matters in accordance with law. This Court never expressed any opinion on the merits of the case whatsoever. Therefore, the dismissal of SLPs pertaining to the route in question by various orders of this Court neither amounts to res judicata nor does it amount that order passed by the High Court amounts to upholding the law propounded in the decision sought to be appealed against. More so, the effect of these two notifications i.e. February 12, 1952 and September 3, 1994 were not considered by this Court or High Court or Tribunal or STA. Once a scheme is notified it prohibits the plying of private vehicle except as permitted by Scheme. Both Schemes nowhere permit operation by private operators. This is a settled proposition of law that in notified Scheme private operator can operate except permitted by the Scheme. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ashrfulla Khan Ors. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 560 wherein Their Lordships after considering earlier decisions of the Constitution Benches observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
