LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Sandeep Kumar Jain & Ors. (with connected Civil Appeal No. 11195 of 2017)

Civil Appeal · 2017 INSC 858Decided 5 Sept 2017
Civil Appeal No. 11194 of 2017
Justice Arun Mishra · Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Background

Private bus operators held regular state-carriage permits on routes including a stretch between Meerut and Bijnor via Dewal Bridge, originally granted when that stretch was a non-notified route. The State Transport Authority later cancelled a number of permits covering the Dewal-Bijnor portion after it became a notified route taken over under the State's approved transport scheme, and the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) set aside the cancellation, ruling in favour of the operators. The State Road Transport Corporation appealed, relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision (Civil Appeal Nos. 7305-7306 of 2003) which had already upheld cancellation of 48 permits on the very same notified route.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once an area or route is taken over under an approved scheme framed under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, private operators cannot continue to ply on any part of that notified route or area unless specifically authorised by the terms of the scheme itself: merely holding a permit that originally covered the route is not enough, following the Constitution Bench ruling in Adarsh Travels Bus Service vs State of U.P. The Court found the present dispute was directly covered by its own earlier ruling upholding cancellation of permits on this same Dewal-Bijnor stretch, and held the High Court was wrong to set aside the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It therefore set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the authorities' orders, allowed the Corporation's appeal (SLP(C) No. 35947/2010), and dismissed the connected appeal (SLP(C) No. 69/2011).

Lesson Learnt

Once a route is formally "notified" and taken over by a State Transport Undertaking's approved scheme, pre-existing private permits on that stretch do not survive merely because they predate the notification: operators must be expressly covered by the scheme itself to continue running on that route.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case