SC raps UP transport body for disallowing permit to MP pvt operators

The Supreme Court rapped the road transport corporation of Uttar Pradesh for disallowing permits to inter-state private stage carriage operators from Madhya Prades

The Supreme Court rapped the road transport corporation of Uttar Pradesh for disallowing permits to inter-state private stage carriage operators from Madhya Pradesh, even as it directed the road transport authorities of the two states to meet within three months discuss the modalities for working out an inter-state reciprocal transport agreement.

The stage carriage operators in their petition before the MP high court argued that the UPSRTC did not allow their buses to enter. (ANI)

A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih observed that courts cannot be “mute spectators” when state transport authorities fail to see the best interest of commuters and passengers. “While we propose to allow the civil appeals and dismiss the writ petition, it would not be in the best interest of the people of the states of UP and MP for us to remain as mute spectators,” the court said.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the UP state road transport corporation (UPSRTC) against an order passed by the MP high court in 2014 asking the UP transport authority to countersign the “permanent” permits issued by MP government to enable private stage carriage operators from MP to freely enter UP and return back to the state.

“None can possibly dispute that the nation having made substantial progress in the road transport sector, interests of passengers and commuters ought to be of prime concern for the transport authorities; in this case, of both the states, i.e., UP and MP,” the bench said.

Justice Datta said, “Stage carriage services are provided for the benefit of a vast cross-section of the population and subjecting them to inconvenience would amount to disservice by the states of MP and UP.”

The bench added, “If the two reciprocating states fail to notice that the services to be introduced would face road-blocks because certain inter-state routes overlap a few intra-state routes, public interest is rendered a casualty and thereby, the whole object and purpose of the inter-state road transport (ISRT) agreement would be frustrated and lost in the process.”

The stage carriage operators in their petition before the MP high court argued that the UPSRTC did not allow their buses to enter or be parked in the state which affected their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to practice any trade or profession.

The bench noted that law favoured the UPSRTC and allowed their appeal noting past decisions by the top court, including a Constitution bench decision, which held that private operators can be stopped from plying on a common stretch of a notified route falling within the state when it is found to overlap with an inter-state road.

The private carriage operators told the top court that there is an inter-state reciprocal transport agreement between UP and MP signed on November 21, 2006 which permits the state-run buses to enter the two states. They argued that the MP state road transport corporation (MPSRYC) has wound up, the same benefit should be extended to private stage carriage operators.

The UPSRTC, on the other hand, argued that the MP high court order had no territorial jurisdiction to pass such an order. Further, even on law, it claimed that grant of permit on stretch falling within notified road within the state lies within its exclusive discretion.

The court noted that road network in India has undergone a vast change with infrastructure development having seen a “quantum leap”. With an intricate network of highways providing “last mile connectivity” to nearby cities and towns from the remotest of villages, the court said that “these highways and expressways” whose surface is “smoother than ever” are transforming India’s transportation landscape and driving economic growth.

“Digitalisation has been a game-changer,” the court said, pointing out that technology has improved services and customer experience is the priority for these corporations. With bookings now made on online platforms offering live tracking on mobile apps, the court said that bearing in mind the customer interest, the Principal Secretaries of transport departments of the two states should meet at a mutually convenient venue within 3 months and discuss the modalities for fully working out the ISRT Agreement.

The court further proposed that it would be open for both states to consider the desirability of exploring partial exclusion of inter-state routes from the approved scheme so as to further the interests of the passengers and the commuters. However, it reiterated that these are matters of policy that should be left to the states to decide.