The Supreme Court of India
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has lamented the apparent lack of application of mind and of purpose by the States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, which have dented the prospect of maximisation of public interest, consequent upon introduction of a few of the inter-State bus routes overlapping part of routes notified in favour of the UP State Road Transport Corporation.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih said much was expected of the States of UP and MP as well as the UPRSTC to protect the interest of the passengers and commuters, which unfortunately has not fructified.
Considering a clutch of petitions, the court disallowed a plea by private operators to ply stage carriage on an inter state route in view of an inter state road transport) agreement in 2006 executed by and between two neighbouring States with exclusive rights to operate buses under Section 88 of the 1988 Motor Vehicles Act.
In its judgment on November 4, 2025, the court said, none can possibly dispute that the nation having made substantial progress in the road transport sector, interests of passengers and commuters ought to be of prime concern for the transport authorities.
"While no permission can be granted at this stage to any private operator having a permit issued by the STA, MP to ply his vehicle on an inter-State route connecting two cities in the neighbouring States, which overlaps any notified intra-state route in the State of UP, we are inclined to the view that much can be achieved through dialogue between the two states," the bench said.
The court said, it would not be in the best interest of the people of the States of UP and MP for the court to remain as mute spectators.
"If the two reciprocating states fail to notice that the services to be introduced would face road-blocks because certain inter-state routes overlap a few intra-state routes, public interest is rendered a casualty and thereby, the whole object and purpose of the IS-RT agreement would be frustrated and lost in the process,'' the bench said.
The court desired the Principal Secretaries of the Transport Departments of the States of MP and UP, together with other responsible officers of the said departments, meet at a mutually convenient venue within three months from date to discuss the modalities for fully working out the IS-RT agreement.
If there is consensus, no time ought to be wasted for grant or issue of permits and countersignature thereof by the reciprocating state, the court opined.
"In the unlikely event of absence of consensus between the two states to permit private operators to ply their vehicles as stage carriages from routes originating in the state of MP and terminating in the state of UP as well as the return trip from the state of UP to the state of MP, the state of MP shall also be at liberty to decide its future course of action keeping in mind that an IS-RT agreement cannot be revoked without the consent of both the States," the court said.