BRIJ MOHAN PARIHAR versus M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.

BRIJ MOHAN PARIHAR versus M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.

A State Road Transport Undertaking cannot allow a private operator to ply his vehicle as nominee under a permit issued to the Corporation, nor can it collect nomination fees or other charges; such arrangements and advertisements are contrary to the Act and ineffective.

Parties
Petitioner: Brij Mohan Parihar; Respondents: M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Permits, State Transport Undertakings, Transfer and Operation of Permits, Scheme Under Chapter IV a of Motor Vehicles Act
Transport Law Administrative Law Motor Vehicle Permits State Transport Undertakings Transfer and Operation of Permits Scheme Under Chapter IV a of Motor Vehicles Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brij Mohan Parihar

Petitioner

M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a State Road Transport Undertaking can allow a private operator as its nominee to operate under its permit on a notified route
  2. 2 Whether the agreement and invitation to tender for operators as nominees of the Corporation are valid under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
  3. 3 Whether the Corporation can charge nomination fees or supervision charges for allowing nominees to operate under its permits

Ratio Decidendi

A State Road Transport Undertaking cannot allow a private operator to ply his vehicle as nominee under a permit issued to the Corporation, nor can it collect nomination fees or other charges; such arrangements and advertisements are contrary to the Act and ineffective.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
  • Petitioner not entitled to writ of mandamus to allow operation as nominee under permit.