Supreme Court ruling on inter-State transport permit disputes between Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
SUPREME COURT ON INTER-STATE TRANSPORT PERMITS UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
CASE SUMMARY - The Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kashmiri Lal Batra (2025) resolved disputes between U.P. and M.P. over inter-State transport permits. It held that private operators cannot be granted permits on inter-State routes overlapping notified intra-State routes reserved for State Transport Corporations. Relying on Adarsh Travels and related precedents, the Court clarified that Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act prevails over inter-State transport agreements under Section 88. The High Court's directive was set aside, and both States were instructed to review and modify their reciprocal transport agreement, ensuring passenger convenience and legal compliance.
| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Chief General Manager vs. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors. & Connected Matters (2025 INSC 1281) |
| Introduction | The case concerns the grant of inter-State stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly when such routes overlap notified intra-State routes. |
| Factual Background | Dispute arose between U.P. and M.P. transport authorities over countersigning of permits on inter-State routes following the winding up of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC). Private operators were granted permits by the Madhya Pradesh authority, but Uttar Pradesh refused to countersign them. |
| Legal Issues | Whether a private operator can be granted an inter-State permit under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act when part of that route overlaps a notified intra-State route governed by a State transport undertaking scheme under Chapter VI. |
| Applicable Law |
|
| Analysis | The Court examined the supremacy of Chapter VI over Chapter V, holding that inter-State agreements are not "law" and cannot override notified schemes. Cited earlier Supreme Court rulings confirming that private operators cannot ply even overlapping parts of notified routes unless expressly permitted. |
| Conclusion | The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing U.P. to countersign the permits, holding that private operators cannot ply on overlapping notified routes without clear legal sanction. |
| Current Scenario | The Court directed both States (U.P. & M.P.) to meet within 3 months to consider modifying the inter-State transport agreement, allowing operation if MPSRTC is conclusively wound up, and to ensure public convenience is protected. |
"Inter-State agreements are not law; notified schemes under Chapter VI prevail over Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act."
SOURCE - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ALSO READ - SUPREME COURT DECISION ON LIABILITY IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CASE
Discover insighs onLatin Maxims and Legal Glossary and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.The LawGist ensures exam success with quality Blogs and Articles on - Top Legal Picks (TLP),Current Affairs, latest Supreme Court judgments asCourtroom Chronicles. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every Professionals and Aspirant's first choice. Discover more at thelawgist.org