{"id":255967,"date":"2009-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-04T13:41:34","modified_gmt":"2017-03-04T08:11:34","slug":"u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                                                                    1\n\n\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n         CIVIL APPEAL No._4555___________2009\n           (@ S.L.P. (C) NO. 29966 of 2008)\n\n\n\n  U.P. State Road Transport Corp.         ...Appellant\n\n\n                               Vs.\n\n\n  Mohd. Ghilman Sharif & Others                ...\n  Respondents\n\n\n                              WITH\n\n       CIVIL APPEAL Nos._4556-4557______ OF 2009\n     (@ S.L.P.(C)Nos.520 of 2009 and 783 of 2009)\n\n\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
  ALTAMAS KABIR,J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\n
2.    This   appeal     has    been   filed   against    the<\/p>\n
      judgment and order dated 14.11.2008 passed by<\/p>\n
      the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. W.P.
\n                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
No.47949 of 2008 filed by the Respondent Nos.<\/p>\n
1 and 2 herein, inter alia, for the issuance<\/p>\n
of a Writ in the nature Mandamus upon the<\/p>\n
Transport Department of the State of U.P. and<\/p>\n
its     authorities        to      allow      the         writ<\/p>\n
petitioners\/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, to<\/p>\n
ply their vehicles against subsisting permits<\/p>\n
on    the    route    between    Muzaffarnagar-Rohana-<\/p>\n
Deoband-Nagal-Saharanpur          and     allied    routes.<\/p>\n
By the said order, the High Court disposed of<\/p>\n
the   writ    petition    with   a   direction      to    the<\/p>\n
State   Transport      Authority     to    decide    as     to<\/p>\n
whether the permit of the Respondent No.1 was<\/p>\n
subsisting and if the same was found to be<\/p>\n
subsisting      the    respondents        would     not    be<\/p>\n
prevented from plying their vehicles on the<\/p>\n
route   in    question.     The      matter   was    to    be<\/p>\n
decided by a speaking order.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
3.   The     facts        in     brief      indicate         that     the<\/p>\n
     Respondent No.1 Mohd. Gilman Sharif and Mohd.<\/p>\n
     Ruman     Sharif,         claimed     to     be    joint      permit<\/p>\n
     holders in respect of the aforesaid route. The<\/p>\n
     second petitioner, Vinod Kumar, claims to have<\/p>\n
     had a permit in respect of the said route<\/p>\n
     which    had     expired       and     his    application        for<\/p>\n
     renewal of the same is said to be pending.<\/p>\n
4.   On 13.2.1986 a Scheme was proposed to notify<\/p>\n
     38    routes     under       Section       68-C<\/a>    of   the    Motor<\/p>\n
     Vehicles Act, 1939(hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
     `the 1939 Act’), which would have the effect<\/p>\n
     of    totally     excluding          all    private     operators<\/p>\n
     from    the     said       routes.    While       Clause   (h)   of<\/p>\n
     Section       68-C<\/a>     provides       for     cancellation        of<\/p>\n
     permits granted to private operators upon such<\/p>\n
     Notification, Clause (j) provides for grant of<\/p>\n
     compensation if no alternative route could be<\/p>\n
     given      to        the     permit         holders.       Various
\n                                                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
     objections        were        filed      by       the      existing<\/p>\n
     operators to the said proposal and in the mean<\/p>\n
     time on 1.7.1989 the Motor Vehicles Act<\/a>, 1988<\/p>\n
     (hereinafter referred to as `the 1988 Act’)<\/p>\n
     came     into    force        and     the     proposed          Scheme<\/p>\n
     continued        for         consideration              under     the<\/p>\n
     provisions      of     the    1988     Act.       The    objections<\/p>\n
     were considered by the Hearing Authority which<\/p>\n
     held that the Scheme had lapsed under Section<\/p>\n
     100(4)<\/a>    of    the       1988   Act.       The    order    of    the<\/p>\n
     Hearing Authority was confirmed by the High<\/p>\n
     Court on 16.3.1990. The said view of the High<\/p>\n
     Court was reversed by this Court in Ramkrishna<\/p>\n
     Verma vs. State of U.P. [(1992) 2 SCC 620]<\/p>\n
     upon    the     finding       that    the     Scheme       had    not<\/p>\n
     lapsed and that the same was required to be<\/p>\n
     finalized.\n<\/p>\n
\n
5.   On     29.5.1993      a    Notification           was     published<\/p>\n
     under     Section          100(3)<\/a>       of    the        1988     Act
\n                                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
finalizing the Scheme of nationalization with<\/p>\n
exclusive right of operation to the appellant<\/p>\n
Corporation     and        total    exclusion       of    private<\/p>\n
operators.      The    said       Notification       was    again<\/p>\n
challenged      in    several       writ     petitions      which<\/p>\n
were    dismissed           by     the     High     Court      on<\/p>\n
19.11.1999.          The     various         Special        Leave<\/p>\n
Petitions     which         were     filed     against      such<\/p>\n
dismissal order were allowed by this Court on<\/p>\n
1.5.2001 and the matter was remanded to the<\/p>\n
Hearing Authority to consider the objections<\/p>\n
which had been filed by the private operators<\/p>\n
and which were under consideration when the<\/p>\n
impugned Notification dated 29.5.1993 had been<\/p>\n
issued.   The    Hearing          Authority    by    its    order<\/p>\n
dated     2.11.2001              allowed      the        existing<\/p>\n
operators, such as the Respondent Nos. 1 and<\/p>\n
2, to ply on the routes in question along with<\/p>\n
the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
6.   The     order        was     again    questioned        by     the<\/p>\n
     Corporation by filing Writ Petition No.9332 of<\/p>\n
     2002    in    the     High    Court     and    the    same    was<\/p>\n
     dismissed       on    23.7.2002      with     the    High    Court<\/p>\n
     holding that the Scheme had lapsed. The said<\/p>\n
     order of the High Court was also challenged<\/p>\n
     before this Court by the appellant Corporation<\/p>\n
     as     well     as     the    private       operators.        Such<\/p>\n
     challenge       was    upheld    on   29.11.2004        and    the<\/p>\n
     matters were remanded to the High Court for<\/p>\n
     re-hearing of Writ Petition No.9332 of 2002<\/p>\n
     filed by the appellant Corporation.<\/p>\n
7.   While Writ Petition No. 9332 of 2002 was still<\/p>\n
     to be heard, the applications for renewal of<\/p>\n
     the permits of the private operators came up<\/p>\n
     for consideration before the State Transport<\/p>\n
     Authority which by its order dated 9.6.2005<\/p>\n
     declined to renew the permits on account of<\/p>\n
     the pendency of the said Writ Petition before
\n                                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
     the     High     Court.         Against     such     refusal,<\/p>\n
     revision petitions were filed before the State<\/p>\n
     Transport       Appellate       Tribunal    which    directed<\/p>\n
     the permits to be renewed subject to the fate<\/p>\n
     of Writ Petition 9332 of 2002. Consequently,<\/p>\n
     on 20.1.2006 the permits were renewed subject<\/p>\n
     to the said condition.\n<\/p>\n
\n
8.   On 1.6.2007 the High Court allowed the Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition and set aside the orders passed by<\/p>\n
     the     Hearing       Authority    holding    that     permit<\/p>\n
     holders who were granted permits prior to 1986<\/p>\n
     were entitled to get compensation                   according<\/p>\n
     to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act<\/a>,<\/p>\n
     1988.       The       Special     Leave    Petitions    filed<\/p>\n
     against the said order were dismissed by this<\/p>\n
     Court on 16.7.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\n
9.   While the Special Leave Petition against the<\/p>\n
     order     of     the     High     Court    dated     1.6.2007<\/p>\n
     allowing       Writ    Petition    No.9332    of    2002   was
\n                                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
pending hearing, the State Transport Authority<\/p>\n
on 26.6.2007 prevented the private operators<\/p>\n
from    operating      on    the    routes   in    question.<\/p>\n
After the Special Leave Petition was dismissed<\/p>\n
on 16.7.2007 the Government took a decision on<\/p>\n
9.8.2007 to allow private operators to operate<\/p>\n
on   the      routes   in    question    along     with   the<\/p>\n
appellant Corporation.             On 28.3.2008 the State<\/p>\n
Government        issued      a      final    Notification<\/p>\n
allowing private operators to operate on the<\/p>\n
notified       route   in    question    along     with   the<\/p>\n
appellant-Corporation.             The said Notification<\/p>\n
dated    28.3.2008     was    challenged     by    the    U.P.<\/p>\n
Roadways Karamchari Union in W.P. No.398 of<\/p>\n
2008 and the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad<\/p>\n
High    Court     by   its     order     dated     7.5.2008,<\/p>\n
restrained the authority from issuing permits<\/p>\n
on      the     notified       routes.       The     private<\/p>\n
respondents also filed W.P. No.47949 of 2008<\/p>\n
in the High Court for a direction upon the
\n                                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondent Authority to allow them to ply on<\/p>\n
    the routes in question on the strength of the<\/p>\n
    permits held by them as no action had been<\/p>\n
    taken either under the Scheme or in terms of<\/p>\n
    Section 103<\/a> of the 1988 Act or even under<\/p>\n
    Sections 104<\/a> and 105<\/a> thereof. The said Writ<\/p>\n
    Petition No.47949 of 2008 was allowed by the<\/p>\n
    High    Court     on   14.11.2008    and   the     State<\/p>\n
    Transport Authority was directed to consider<\/p>\n
    the applications filed by the respondents in<\/p>\n
    the light of the Notification dated 28.3.2008<\/p>\n
    by which private operators had been permitted<\/p>\n
    to operate on the routes in question along<\/p>\n
    with the appellant-Corporation.<\/p>\n
10. It is against the said order of remand that<\/p>\n
    the present appeal has been filed by the U.P.<\/p>\n
    State Road Transport Corporation.<\/p>\n
11. Mr.    Dushyant    Dave,   learned   senior      counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing for the appellant-Corporation, while
\n                                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
narrating the above-mentioned facts confined<\/p>\n
his submissions to the issue regarding renewal<\/p>\n
of the permits upon the orders of the State<\/p>\n
Transport Appellate Tribunal, subject to the<\/p>\n
decision in Writ Petition No.9332 of 2002. The<\/p>\n
said Writ Petition was, in fact, disposed of<\/p>\n
by the Allahabad High Court on 1.6.2007 in<\/p>\n
favour     of    the   appellant      Corporation      upon<\/p>\n
negating the stand that the Corporation was<\/p>\n
not in a position to cater to the needs of the<\/p>\n
travelling public on account of suffering huge<\/p>\n
losses and insufficient number of buses which<\/p>\n
disabled        them   from    providing     sufficient,<\/p>\n
adequate, economical and properly coordinated<\/p>\n
transport service to the travelling public.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dave pointed out that the order of the<\/p>\n
Hearing Authority in so far as it modified the<\/p>\n
approved Scheme dated 29.5.1993, could not be<\/p>\n
sustained,       and   was    set   aside   by   the   High<\/p>\n
Court.     Mr. Dave also pointed out that while
\n                                                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
    disposing of the said writ petition the High<\/p>\n
    Court     had     categorically        held     that     permit<\/p>\n
    holders    who     had    been   granted       permit    before<\/p>\n
    13.2.1986 i.e., before the date of publication<\/p>\n
    of the Scheme, whose permits were going to be<\/p>\n
    affected by the approved Scheme on 29.5.1993,<\/p>\n
    were only entitled to compensation in terms of<\/p>\n
    the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\n
12. Mr. Dave submitted that after such decision<\/p>\n
    there was no scope for the private operators,<\/p>\n
    including the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein,<\/p>\n
    to be given any further opportunity of hearing<\/p>\n
    regarding their claim to operate on the route<\/p>\n
    in    question     on    the   basis   of      their    permits<\/p>\n
    which had been cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
\n
13. Mr.     Ranjit     Kumar,      learned      senior      counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing        for     Respondent      Nos.     1     and   2,<\/p>\n
    submitted that all that the said respondents<\/p>\n
    wanted    was     an     opportunity      to    place     their
\n                                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
    respective cases before the State Transport<\/p>\n
    Authority     in     order        to     establish       their<\/p>\n
    eligibility    on    the   strength        of   the   permits<\/p>\n
    issued   to   them    earlier       to    operate     on   the<\/p>\n
    routes   in   question.      Mr.       Ranjit   Kumar   urged<\/p>\n
    that the permits issued to the respondents did<\/p>\n
    not stand cancelled as per the procedure under<\/p>\n
    Section 103(2)<\/a> of the 1988 Act, but merely<\/p>\n
    became inoperative.\n<\/p>\n
\n
14. He also urged that after a survey conducted in<\/p>\n
    June 2007, the State Transport Authority had<\/p>\n
    arrived at a conclusion that the appellant-<\/p>\n
    Corporation was not in a position to provide<\/p>\n
    appropriate    service       on    the    notified      routes<\/p>\n
    which caused the State Government to issue a<\/p>\n
    Notification on 12.12.2007 proposing to modify<\/p>\n
    the exclusive Scheme in terms of section 102<\/a><\/p>\n
    of the 1988 Act. It was urged that even on a<\/p>\n
    notified route, when a notified operator was
\n                                                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
unable to provide adequate service, the State<\/p>\n
Transport Authority and the State Government<\/p>\n
were vested with powers under Section 102<\/a> of<\/p>\n
the 1988 Act to modify the Scheme. Mr. Ranjit<\/p>\n
Kumar      referred     to   the    Constitution            Bench<\/p>\n
decision     of     this   Court   in    A.P.       State   Road<\/p>\n
Transport Corporation vs. Regional Transport<\/p>\n
Authority     and     another<\/a>      [(2005)      4    SCC     391]<\/p>\n
wherein, while considering a similar question<\/p>\n
it   was     held     that   it    was    for       the     State<\/p>\n
Government to consider what is suitable for<\/p>\n
public service. The State Government has the<\/p>\n
power to modify the Scheme in case of a need<\/p>\n
since the Scheme is after all intended for the<\/p>\n
benefit of the public and if any step was<\/p>\n
required to be taken in that regard the State<\/p>\n
Government could always do so by modifying the<\/p>\n
Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
15.    We are afraid, we are unable to agree with<\/p>\n
      Mr. Ranjit Kumar on the question of further<\/p>\n
      hearing to be given to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2<\/span><\/p>\n
      on their claim to be allowed to operate on the<\/p>\n
      notified routes in question on the basis of<\/p>\n
      the   permits     which    according     to   the    said<\/p>\n
      respondents were dormant and were capable of<\/p>\n
      being reviewed in the existing circumstances.<\/p>\n
16. As we have indicated earlier, the permits of<\/p>\n
      the private operators on the said routes were<\/p>\n
      renewed      by   the   State   Transport     Appellate<\/p>\n
      Authority by its order dated 20.1.2006 which<\/p>\n
      made it very clear that such renewal would be<\/p>\n
      subject to the fate of W.P. No.9332 of 2002.<\/p>\n
      The   said    writ   petition   was    disposed     of   on<\/p>\n
      1.6.2007 by the Allahabad High Court and the<\/p>\n
      said judgment has been reported in 2001 Vol. 5<\/p>\n
      ALJ at page 255.        After considering the entire<\/p>\n
      matter in detail, the Division Bench of the
\n                                                         15<\/span><\/p>\n
    High     Court     has     allowed    the    said   writ<\/p>\n
    application filed by the appellant-Corporation<\/p>\n
    and has negated the contentions of the private<\/p>\n
    operators who, it was held, were only entitled<\/p>\n
    to compensation in terms of the provisions of<\/p>\n
    the 1988 Act.\n<\/p>\n
\n
17. In that view of the matter, the present appeal<\/p>\n
    has to be allowed. The directions given by the<\/p>\n
    High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
    47949 of 2008 are hereby set aside and the<\/p>\n
    prayer made by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein<\/p>\n
    for being given a hearing to establish their<\/p>\n
    claims     is    also    refused.     This   will   not,<\/p>\n
    however,    prevent      the   said   respondents   from<\/p>\n
    claiming compensation under Section 105<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\n
18. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above<\/p>\n
    terms.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
 19. There will, however, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
 CIVIL APPEAL NOs. ________ OF 2009
\n (@ S.L.P.(C)Nos.520 of 2009 and 783 of 2009)<\/p>\n
20.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   leave   is   also<\/p>\n
granted in these two special leave petitions, which<\/p>\n
are also allowed and disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                          ______________J.\n<\/p>\n
                                           (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                                          ______________J.\n<\/p>\n
                                           (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
\nNew Delhi
\nDated: 20.07.2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No._4555___________2009 (@ S.L.P. (C) NO. 29966 of 2008) U.P. State Road Transport Corp. …Appellant Vs. Mohd. Ghilman Sharif […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-255967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nU.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-04T08:11:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-04T08:11:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1932,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009\",\"name\":\"U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-04T08:11:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-04T08:11:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-04T08:11:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009"},"wordCount":1932,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009","name":"U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-04T08:11:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-corp-vs-mohd-ghilman-sharif-ors-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors on 20 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255967","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=255967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255967\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}