Supreme Court of India
U.P.State Road Transport Corpn., ... vs Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. Etc on 1 September, 1998
Author: B.N. Kirpal
Bench: B.N. Kirpal
PETITIONER: U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN., LUCKNOW Vs. RESPONDENT: SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/09/1998 BENCH: A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL. ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R Leave granted.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interpretation placed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court on Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2988 is unexceptionable and calls for no interference. We, however, find that the view taken by the high Court to the effect that since the Corporation did not get the permits renewed, which were granted to it in 1987 with regard to the nationalised routed it could not ply its vehicles on the notified routes without a renewal permit for the reasons given by us in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Regional Transport Authority and others [C.A. No. 4637 of 1998 (@SLP(C) No. 1992) is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The reasons given by us in that judgment would apply insofar as this aspect is concerned to this appeal also. With these observations the appeal is disposed of. No costs.