Supreme Court Holds Private Operators Cannot Ply on Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified Intra-State Routes – UPSRTC v. Kashmiri Lal Batra (2025)

Case Name: U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors. (with connected appeals)
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 10522–10524 of 2025; SLP (C) Diary No. 29083/2018; W.P. (C) No. 748/2024; 2025 INSC 1281
Date of Judgment/Order: 04 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

Held: The Supreme Court held that private operators cannot be granted or allowed to ply stage carriage permits on inter-State routes where any portion overlaps a notified intra-State route covered by an approved scheme under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court reaffirmed that Chapter VI overrides Chapter V by virtue of Section 98, and that an inter-State reciprocal transport agreement executed under Section 88—being merely an agreement between two States and not “law”—cannot override a notified scheme or permit private operators to traverse prohibited segments of notified routes. The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. and subsequent coordinated Bench rulings to hold that any grant of permits to private operators on overlapping notified routes is impermissible irrespective of distance, partial overlap, or conditions. The High Court’s contrary directions requiring countersignature of permits and facilitating private operators to ply on overlapping notified routes were therefore legally unsustainable.

Summary: The appeals arose from multiple judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and a writ petition seeking directions to countersign or give effect to stage carriage permits issued by STA, Madhya Pradesh under the inter-State reciprocal transport agreement (IS-RT Agreement) dated 21.11.2006 between MP and UP. The permits related to inter-State routes that partially overlapped intra-State routes in Uttar Pradesh which had been notified under Chapter VI in favour of UPSRTC. The private operators argued that since MPSRTC had allegedly been wound up, the routes allocated to it under Schedule B of the IS-RT Agreement automatically shifted to Schedule A permitting private operation. They contended that the IS-RT Agreement bound the State of UP to countersign such permits. UPSRTC and the State of UP opposed this, arguing that (i) there was no conclusive proof of the winding-up of MPSRTC, (ii) an IS-RT Agreement cannot override a notified route under Chapter VI, and (iii) Supreme Court precedent consistently prohibits private operators from plying any portion of a notified route unless expressly permitted under the scheme. The Supreme Court reviewed a long line of precedent beginning with Raghunatha Reddy, Abdul Khader, Mysore SRTC (II), the Constitution Bench in Adarsh Travels, and T.V. Nataraj, and concluded that the law was well-settled: private operators are completely barred from operating on any stretch — however small — of a notified route unless expressly exempted under the scheme. The Court found that the High Court had ignored this binding jurisprudence and had issued directions contrary to settled law. The Court also criticized both States for lack of coordination and failing to anticipate route conflicts when framing the IS-RT Agreement, noting that passenger inconvenience could be minimized only through policy dialogue and potential modification of schemes under Section 102.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside all the High Court orders directing the State of Uttar Pradesh or UPSRTC to countersign or honour the permits issued by the STA, Madhya Pradesh, and dismissed the connected writ petition seeking similar relief. It held that private operators cannot ply their stage carriages on any inter-State route where even a small segment overlaps a notified intra-State route in Uttar Pradesh until and unless the notified scheme is modified in accordance with law. The Court, while denying relief to private operators, directed the States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh to convene a meeting of their Principal Secretaries and transport authorities within three months to examine whether the IS-RT Agreement can be suitably worked out or modified under Section 102, including determining whether MPSRTC has indeed been wound up and whether partial exclusion from the notified scheme can be considered to safeguard public convenience. With these directions and clarifications, the appeals were allowed, the writ petition was dismissed, and proceedings were closed without costs.