http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: CHERAN TRANSPORT CO. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KANAN LORRY SERVICE AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/12/1976

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1564            1977 SCR  (2) 389  1977 SCC  (1) 604  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1980 SC2044  (7)  R          1992 SC 180  (4)

ACT:         Motor  Vehicle Act -- Secs. 58,68--C 68D(3),  68F(1D)--Stage         carriage operator--Permit--Renewal--Renewal application made         within time-- Whether can be defeated by Publication Scheme.

HEADNOTE:         The respondent was Stage Carriage Operator whose two permits         were  to  expire in January and March 1976.   In  the  usual         course  and  in  compliance  with section 58  of  the  Motor         Vehicles  Act,  1939, he applied for renewal more  than  120         days  ahead but at the time of the actual date of expiry  of         the  permits  a draft scheme under part IV-A had  been  pub-         lished.  The State withdrew the draft scheme under part IV-A         for  some  technical reasons and republished in  July  1975,         after the appellants’ permits had expired.  Section  68F(1D)         provides  that no permit shall be granted or renewal  during         the period intervening between the date of publication under         s.  68C  of any scheme and the date of  publication  of  the         approved  or modified scheme.  The proviso to the said  sec-         tion provides that if a permit expires after the publication         of  the   scheme  such permit may be renewed for  a  limited         period  but the renewed permit  shall cease to be  effective         on  the publication of the scheme under s. 68D(3).  Applying         the  prohibition  contained  in  s.  68F(1D)  the   Regional         Transport   Authority rejected the prayer for renewal.   The         High  Court set aside that order directed the grant  of  the         renewal.         Dismissing the appeals,             HELD:  1. At the time the respondents’ permit expired  a         draft  scheme  had already been published but  the  approved         scheme  had  not been, published. Any  permit  holder  whose         permit  expires during this spell is eligible for a  renewal         as specified in the proviso.  The fact that the draft scheme         was  later withdrawn ca.not affect the rights to a  renewal.         Renewal of the permit however would be to the extent contem-         plated by section 68F(1D).  [390G-H]             2.   (a) No permit or renewal except to the  extent  ex-         pressly  saved  by  section 68F(1D) can be  granted  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

       Regional  Transport Authority during the period between  the         date of publication of any scheme and  the  date  of  publi-         cation of the approved scheme. [391C]             (b)  If  a permit expires after the publication  of  any         draft   scheme   such permit is eligible for renewal  for  a         limited period as set out in the proviso. The special provi-         sion  contained in that proviso cannot be stretched  on  the         ground of possible anomalies or unjust consequences to cover         permits  expiring even before the publication of  the  draft         scheme.   Where language is plain the interpretation  cannot         take  the  shape of addition  or  interstitial  legislation.         [391C-D]             3.  If a permit holder whose permit is about  to  expire         diligently does in the normal course, all that he needs  and         all  that he can, that is to say, if he sets in  motion  the         legal  machinery  for the grant of renewal as laid  down  in         section  58, the fact that a scheme is published before  the         actual   grant  of renewal will not intercept or  extinguish         the  process  of law set in motion by  the  application  for         renewal.  If for reasons beyond the control of the applicant         the renewal process gets delayed or prolonged he. cannot  be         penalised.   Renewal  is a legal process and not  the  final         act.  Save in this category of cases all other permits which         have  expired before the draft scheme is  published,  suffer         the ban of s. 68F(1D).  However, no permit can ensure beyond         the time of the publication of the approved scheme.   [391D-         F]         390

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil  Appeal  Nos. 1349-         1350/76.             Appeals  by Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Decree         dated the 12th October 1976 of the Madras High Court in Writ         Petition Nos. 5881 and 5884 of 1975.                V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol, General of lndia, (Mrs.) N. G,         Krishna  Iyengar, Shri Narain, K.J.’ John, D.N.  Mishra  for         the Appellant.                F.S.  Nariman,  M. N.  Rangachari,  A.R.  Ramanathan,         Jayaraman,M.M.L. Srivastava and A.T.M. Sarapath for Respond-         ent No. 1.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by--             KRISHNA IYER, J. The short ,question, involving a  point         of  construction  of  s. 68-F(1D), has been  raised  by  the         Additional  Solicitor  General in these appeals  by  Special         Leave.             The  respondent was a stage carriage operator whose  two         permits ,were to expire in January and. March 1976.  In  the         usual  course  and in compliance with s. 58.  of  the  Motor         Vehicles  Act,  1939 (for short, ’The Act’) he  applied  for         renewal  more  than 120 days ahead but at the  time  of  the         actual  date of expiry of the permits a-draft  scheme  under         part  IV-A had been published.  This fulfilled the  require-         ments of the proviso to s. 68-F(1D) and entitled the  appel-         lant  to renewal for the limited period stated in  the  said         proviso.   But the State withdrew the draft scheme for  some         technical reasons and republished it in July 1975, after the         appellant’s  permit had expired.  Applying  the  prohibition         contained  in s. 68-F(1D)  the Regional Transport  Authority         (for  short the ’R.T.A.’) rejected the prayer  for  renewal.         However,  the High Court set aside that order  and  directed         the grant of renewal, on a certain view of the section which         the  Additional Solicitor General contends goes  beyond  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       limits  of  the plain words used.  The aggrieved  State  ap-         peals.             While  we are satisfied that on the peculiar  facts.  of         this  case the respondent can sustain the permits the  legal         position canvassed by the appellant appears to be correct.             At  the  time the respondent’s permit  expired  a  draft         scheme  had already been published but the  approved  scheme         had  not  been published.  Any permit  holder  whose  permit         expires  during  this  spell is eligible for  a  renewal  as         specified  in the proviso.  The fact that the  draft  scheme         was  later withdrawn cannot affect the right to  a  renewal.         We, therefore, hold that the renewal of permit shall  remain         to the extent contemplated in the proviso to s. 68-F(1D).         Before  we  consider the legal question we may read  s.  68-         F(1D).                            "(1D) Save as otherwise provided in  sub-                       sectiOn  (1A) or sub-section (1G),  no  permit                       shall be granted or renewed during the  period                       intervening  between the date of  publication,                       under Section 68-(2 of any scheme and the date                       of  publication  of the approved  or  modified                       scheme, in favour of                       391                       any  person  for any class or  road  transport                       service  in  relation to an area or  route  or                       portion  thereof covered  by such scheme.                             Provided that where the period of opera-                       tion  of  a permit in relation  to  any  area,                       route,  or  portion  thereof  specified  in  a                       scheme  published under Section  68-C  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 Seetion 68-D."                       Three propositions plainly emerge.             No  permit  or renewal, except to the  extent  expressly         saved  by s. 68-F(ID), can be granted by the  R.T.A.  during         the period between the date of publication of any scheme and         the  date of publication of the approved scheme.  (2)  If  a         permit  expires  after the publication of any  draft  scheme         such permit is eligible for renewal for a limited period  as         set  out in the proviso.  This special provision  cannot  be         stretched,  on  the ground of possible anomalies  or  unjust         consequences,  to  cover permits expiring  even  before  the         publication  of  the draft scheme.  Where  the  language  is         plain,  interpretation cannot take the shape of addition  or         interstitial legislation.  (3) A rider to proposition No.  2         has  to be added.  If a permit holder whose permit is  about         to  expire, diligently does, in the normal course, all  that         he  need  and  all that he can, that is to  say,  apply  for         renewal before 120 days, in the manner laid down in s. 58 of         the Act, he sets in motion the legal machinery for the grant         of  renewal  which  must ordinarily  culminate.  in  renewal         within  120  days.   The fact that a  scheme   is  published         before  the  actual grant of renewal will not  intercept  or         extinguish the process of law set in motion by the  applica-         tion  for  renewal.   In such cases the R.T.A.  has  to  act         promptly and if the application for renewal is in conformity         with  the  law  it has to consider it and  grant  or  reject         according  to merit.  If, for reasons beyond the control  of         the  applicant,   the renewal process gets delayed  or  pro-         longed he cannot be penalised.  Renewal is a legal  process,         not  the  final act.  Save in this category of  cases,   all         other permits which have expired before the draft scheme  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

       published,  suffer  the  ban of s.  68-F(1D).   However,  no         permit can ensure beyond the time of the publication of  the         approved scheme.  This saves cases of bona-fide applications         for  renewal of permits, not calculated to thwart a  scheme,         and helps the travelling public during the interregnum  when         the scheme is under scrutiny.  The wider proposition accept-         ed  by  the High Court that all permits which  have  expired         before the draft scheme is published can be renewal does not         appear to be correct and does not have our approval.             With this declaration of the law we dismiss the appeals.         No order as to costs.         P.H.P.                                 Appeals dismissed.         9--1546SCI/76         392