Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
ANNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, DHARMAPURI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT23/07/1980
BENCH:
SHINGAL, P.N.
BENCH:
SHINGAL, P.N.
UNTWALIA, N.L.
TULZAPURKAR, V.D.
CITATION:
1980 AIR 2044 1981 SCR (1) 69
1980 SCC (4) 122
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), S 68F(1D) and
Proviso-Scope and applicability.
HEADNOTE:
Section 68F(1D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
provides that no permit shall be granted or renewed during
the period intervening between the date of publication,
under section 68C of any scheme and the date of publication
of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person
in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered
by that scheme.
Respondent No. 2 was a private operator operating a
Stage carriage route. Its permit was due to expire on
October 9, 1974 and it applied for its renewal. The
application was notified on June 5, 1974 under section 57(3)
of the Motor Vehicles Act. Objections to the renewal
application were filed by the appellant Corporation on June
25, 1974 which also simultaneously applied for the grant of
a permit to itself. The Regional Transport Authority fixed
December 21, 1974 for hearing and the case was adjourned.
In the meanwhile, respondent no. 2 filed a Writ
Petition and challenged the validity of Rule 155A of the
Motor Vehicles Rules and obtained stay of the hearing of the
matter which was pending before the Regional Transport
Authority. The validity of the said rule was upheld by the
High Court and the writ petition was dismissed.
A draft scheme of road transport service of the
appellant corporation was published on June 4, 1976 under
section 68C of the Act and that scheme overlapped a section
of the route operated by respondent no. 2.
The Regional Transport Authority rejected the
application of respondent No. 2 on October 30, 1976 and
granted a permit to the appellant, which order was confirmed
by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The High Court, however in revision took the view that
the matter fell within the purview of sub-section (1D) of
section 68, but held on a reading of the decision in Cheran
Transport Co. Ltd. v. Kanan Lorry Service & Anr. (1977) 2
SCR 389, that the case fell within the purview of the
"rider" to proposition no. 2 set out in that judgment with
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
reference to the proviso to section (1D) of section 68F of
the Act and allowed the revision petitions.
Allowing the appeals to this Court,
^
HELD: (i) By virtue of the clear provision of sub-
section (1D) of section 68F of the Act, no permit could be
granted or renewed during the period intervening between the
date of publication of the scheme under section 68C, and the
date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in
favour of any person in any class of road transport service.
[72E]
70
(ii) The High Court clearly went wrong in thinking that
the case fell within the purview of the proviso to sub-
section (1D) and it consequently erred in taking into
consideration the so-called rider to proposition 2 mentioned
in the judgment in Cheran’s case. [72F]
(iii) The proviso would have been applicable only if
the period of operation of the permit of the respondent had
expired after the publication of the scheme prepared under
section 68C; but that was not so in this case. [72F]
In the instant case, it was respondent no. 2 who filed
a fruitless writ petition and prevented the disposal of the
renewal application for a long time by obtaining a stay
order. [72G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2780-
2782 of 1977.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 22-8-1977 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 559-
561/77.
K. Parasaran, Solicitor-General of India and A.V.
Rangam for the Appellant.
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, S. Srinivasan and A.T.M.
Sampath for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGHAL, J. These appeals by special leave are
directed against a common judgment of the Madras High Court
dated August 22, 1977, in three revision petitions against
the orders of the State Transport Corporation, Madras, dated
February 16, 1977, by which the High Court allowed the
revision petitions and remitted the cases to the Regional
Transport Authority for fresh consideration in the light of
its observations. The High Court directed further that the
revision petitioners before it as well as the present
appellant Corporation would continue to provide transport
facilities on the route in question until the disposal of
the renewal applications of the revision petitioners.
The facts of the three appeals are quite simple and are
not in controversy. They have been heard together at the
instance of the learned Counsel for the parties and will be
disposed of by this common judgment.
The controversy relates to the plying of vehicles on
the Salem-Krishnagiri route. The facts of one of the three
cases have been placed for our consideration by the learned
Counsel for the parties and they have informed us that they
are sufficient for the adequate disposal of all the appeals.
Balkrishna Bus Service and Company, respondent No. 2,
was a private operator on the aforesaid route. Its permit
was due to expire on October 9, 1974, and it applied for its
renewal within the time
71
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
prescribed by law. Its application was notified on June 5,
1974, under section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
hereinafter referred to as the Act. Objections to the
renewal application were filed by the Anna Transport
Corporation Limited, which is the present appellant, on June
25, 1974. The Corporation, at the same time, also applied
for the grant of a permit to it. A controversy therefore
arose in the matter and the Regional Transport Authority
fixed December 21, 1974, for its hearing. The case was,
however, adjourned. Balakrishna Bus Service and Co., in the
meantime, filed a writ petition and challenged the validity
of rule 155-A of the Motor Vehicle Rules of the State and
obtained a stay of the hearing of the matter which was
pending before the Regional Transport Authority. A draft
scheme for the route from Mettur to Kallakurchi via Omalur
and Salem was published on June 4, 1976, and it formed a
sector of the Salem-Krishnagiri route. The validity of
aforesaid Rule 155-A was finally upheld by the High Court on
June 29, 1976. It therefore dismissed the writ petition and
directed the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of the
pending application for renewal within a month. The Regional
Transport Authority rejected that application on October 30,
1976, and granted a permit to the present appellant. The
State Transport Appellate Tribunal confirmed that order. The
matter was taken to the High Court in revision and that led
to the passing of the impugned judgment.
The facts are, therefore, quite simple. There is no
controversy about them, and they are sufficient for the
disposal of the present appeals by special leave.
It is not disputed before us that the section
applicable to the controversy is section 68F of the Act. The
High Court, in fact, not only decided the revision petitions
with reference to that section but rightly took the view
that the controversy before it fell within the purview of
sub-section (1D) thereof. It, however, held on a reading of
this Court’s decision in Cheran Transport Co. Ltd. v. Kanan
Lorry Service & Anr.,(1) that the case fell within the
purview of the so-called "rider" to proposition No. 2 set
out in that judgment with reference to the proviso to sub-
section (1D) of section 68F of the Act. The sub-section
reads as follows,-
(1D) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section
(1A) or subsection (1C) no permit shall be granted or
renewed during the period intervening between the date
of publication, under section 68C of any scheme and the
date of publication of the approved or modified scheme,
in favour of any person for any class
72
of road transport service in relation to an area or
route or portion thereof covered by such scheme:
Provided that where the period of operation of a
permit in relation to any area, route or portion
thereof specified in a scheme published under section
68C expires after such publication, such permit may be
renewed for a limited period, but the permit so renewed
shall cease to be effective on the publication of the
scheme under sub-section (3) of section 68D.
It is not in controversy that sub-section (1A) or sub-
section (1C) of section 68F are not applicable to the
controversy. The rest of sub-section (1D) provides that no
permit shall be granted or "renewed" during the period
intervening between the date of publication under section
68C of any scheme and the date of publication of any
approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person in
relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
that scheme.
As has been stated, a draft scheme of road transport
service of the appellant Corporation was published on June
4, 1976, under section 68C of the Act and, as has been
mentioned, that scheme overlapped a section of the Salem-
Krishnagiri route. It follows, therefore, that by virtue of
the clear provision of sub-section (1D) of section 68F of
the Act, no permit could be granted or renewed during the
period intervening between the date of publication of the
aforesaid scheme under section 68C, that is, after June 4,
1976, and the date of publication of the approved or
modified scheme, in favour of any person for any class of
road transport service. The High Court therefore clearly
went wrong in thinking that the case fell within the purview
of the proviso to sub-section (1D) and it consequently erred
in taking into consideration the so-called rider to
proposition No. 2 mentioned in this Court’s judgment in
Cheran’s case (supra). The proviso would have been
applicable only if the period of operation of the permit of
the respondents had expired after the publication of the
scheme prepared under section 68C; but that was not so in
this case. It has also to be remembered that in this case it
was the respondent (private operator) who filed a fruitless
writ petition and prevented the disposal of the renewal
application for a long time by obtaining a stay order. On a
plain reading of sub-section (1D) of section 68F of the
Act, we have therefore no hesitation in allowing the appeals
with costs. We may however add that if no approved or
modified scheme has been published so far, the proper course
for the Regional Transport Authority would be to keep the
three renewal applications pending and not to treat them as
dismissed. The stay orders are vacated.
N.V.K. Appeals allowed.
73