NEW DELHI, Nov 4 : The Supreme Court today ruled that private bus operators cannot be granted stage carriage permits on inter-State routes under reciprocal transport agreements if any portion of those routes overlaps a notified intra-State route reserved for State Transport Undertakings (STUs) under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih set aside an order of the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had directed recognition of permits issued to Madhya Pradesh’s private operators under the Inter-State Reciprocal Transport (IS-RT) Agreement between Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.
The High Court had directed Uttar Pradesh authorities to validate such permits even on routes exclusively operated by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC).
The dispute arose from an IS-RT Agreement signed in 2006 between the two States, which categorised certain routes (Schedule A) for private operators and others (Schedule B) for the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC). When MPSRTC stopped operating, private operators sought access to Schedule B routes.
Although Madhya Pradesh authorities issued permits, the Uttar Pradesh authorities refused to countersign them, resulting in litigation.
The UPSRTC and the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.
Answering the key question, whether a private operator can be granted a permit on an inter-State route that overlaps a notified intra-State route, the Bench held in the negative.
Justice Datta, authoring the judgment, observed that an IS-RT Agreement “is an instrument, not a law,” and therefore cannot override a statutorily approved transport scheme under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
“Notified routes under approved schemes shall prevail over an inter-State agreement in respect of overlapping inter-State routes,” the Court held.
It further declared that “no permission can be granted at this stage to any private operator having a permit issued by the State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh, to ply his vehicle on an inter-State route connecting two cities in neighbouring States, which overlaps any notified intra-State route in the State of Uttar Pradesh.”
The Bench expressed concern over the lack of coordination between the States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, observing that such lapses defeat the purpose of reciprocal transport arrangements.
“Once two States hold talks for formulating and opening up routes for plying of stage carriages connecting cities or towns on a reciprocal basis, there is a presupposition of public interest being at the forefront. If the States fail to notice overlapping issues, public interest is rendered a casualty, frustrating the very purpose of the IS-RT Agreement,” the judgment noted.
The Court directed the Principal Secretaries of the Transport Departments of both States to convene a meeting within three months to discuss and finalise modalities for effectively implementing the IS-RT Agreement.
The Bench suggested that both States may consider “partial exclusion” from the notified scheme, allowing private inter-State buses to pass through overlapping sections without picking up or dropping passengers, thereby protecting the UPSRTC’s interests while ensuring commuter convenience.
The Court emphasised that any decision on modifying or expanding the routes must be reached through consensus between the two States.
“These being matters of policy, should be left to both States to decide. We hereby reserve it for their consideration,” the Bench concluded.
(UNI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
