Supreme Court rules private operators cannot ply on inter-state routes overlapping notified intra-state routes - approved transport schemes override inter-state agreements under Motor Vehicles Act
IF A PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR GETS AN INTER-STATE PERMIT FROM ONE STATE, CAN THEY AUTOMATICALLY OPERATE ON ROUTES THAT OVERLAP WITH NOTIFIED INTRA-STATE ROUTES IN ANOTHER STATE?
NO, THEY CANNOT. The Supreme Court has ruled that approved transport schemes and notified routes under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 override inter-state agreements under Section 88. Private operators cannot operate on inter-state routes that overlap with notified intra-state routes, even if they have permits from one state and an inter-state agreement exists.
Inter-State Agreement: MP and UP sign reciprocal transport agreement under Section 88 MV Act
MPSRTC Operations: Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation operates Schedule B routes
MPSRTC Winding Up: Corporation stops operations, routes get de-notified
Private Operators Apply: Private operators seek permits for de-notified routes
High Court Order: MP High Court directs UP to countersign permits
Multiple Challenges: Various operators file cases for similar relief
Writ Petition Filed: Operators file direct Supreme Court petition
Supreme Court Judgment: Sets aside High Court orders, upholds notified route supremacy
| Legal Argument | Basis in Law | Application in Your Case |
|---|---|---|
| Chapter VI Supremacy | Section 98 MV Act | Notified routes override inter-state agreements |
| Public Interest Protection | Section 99 MV Act | Approved schemes serve public transportation needs |
| Constitutional Bench Precedents | Adarsh Travels Case | Clear legal position established since 1985 |
| Route Overlap Prohibition | Mysore SRTC Cases | Even partial overlap with notified route is prohibited |
A route approved under Chapter VI MV Act where State Transport Undertaking has exclusive or preferential operation rights.
Agreement between two states under Section 88 MV Act for mutual recognition of transport permits on inter-state routes.
Legal principle that provisions of Chapter VI MV Act prevail over inconsistent provisions in Chapter V or other laws.
Situation where an inter-state route shares any portion with a notified intra-state route on the same highway.
Transport scheme finalized after publication, objections, and approval process under Sections 99-100 MV Act.
"Approved schemes and notified routes, which are envisaged in Chapter VI, would obviously override Section 88, in view of Section 98 of the 1988 MV Act... The consistent view of this Court has been that an IS-RT Agreement by its very nature is an agreement between two States but not a law under the relevant MV Act."
This judgment reinforces the supremacy of public transport schemes over private commercial interests. It protects the integrity of state transport planning and ensures that inter-state agreements cannot undermine carefully crafted transport policies designed to serve public interest through notified routes operated by state transport undertakings.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for specific legal guidance. The information provided is based on judicial interpretation and may be subject to changes in law.
Making Supreme Court judgments accessible and actionable for every Indian citizen navigating legal challenges.
This roadmap decodes a complex administrative law judgment to help transport operators and citizens understand the hierarchy between inter-state transport agreements and notified route schemes. It empowers them to navigate transport permit regulations effectively while protecting public interest in transportation systems.