http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: D.   M. THIPPESWAMY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE MYSORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1972

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N. MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1972 AIR 1674            1973 SCR  (1) 562  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1973 SC 534  (4,5,6)

ACT: Motor  Vehicles Act, 1939-Ss. 63(1), 68(c)     and  68(F)-An existing   permit    holder’-meaning       of-Who        can cancel     an      existing permit of a  Transport  operator under s. 68F(2)   of the Act.

HEADNOTE: The appellant, a transport operator, obtained a permit  from the  Regional Transport Authority for an  inter-State  route from  Mysore  State  to Andhra Pradesh.   Even  before  this permit was issued to him, the State of Mysore had notified a draft scheme under s. 68(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, providing for the operation of the trunk routes by the State Transport undertaking in the Bellary District. M.S.  R.T.C.,  a  State  Transport  Undertaking  and  others objected to the issue of the permit to the appellant but the E.T.A.  in  Mysore  State  over.  ruled  their   objections. Aggrieved  by  the  said order,  M.S.R.T.C.  &  other  rival claimants   appealed  before  the  Mysore  State   Transport Appellate  Tribunal.   Meanwhile, the  Government  issued  a notification  u/s  68(3)  ,of the Act  approving  the  draft scheme  issued  by it earlier.  One of the  clauses  of  the scheme  known  as Bellary scheme, provided  that  the  State Transport  Undertaking will operate services on  all  routes except  to the portions of the inter-district  routes  lying outside the Bellary district. The  existing permit holders were allowed to continue  their operations  in inter-State routes subject to  the  condition that  their  permits shall be rendered  ineffective  by  the competent  authority  for the over-lapping  portion  in  the district of Bellary.  Thereafter, the M.S.R.T.C. applied for permits u/s 68 F for the routes mentioned under the  Bellary scheme.   Till  then  the appellant  had  not  obtained  the counter signature of the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra  Pradesh as required u/s 63(1) of the Act. The  appeal filed by M.S.R.T.C. was dismissed by the  Mysore State  Transport Appellate Authority and M.S.R.T.C. went  up in appeal before Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal.   During the pendency of that appeal, the appellant obtained counter- signatures of the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh for his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

inter-State permit.  The permit issued to the appellant  was renewed by the R.T.A. in Mysore State and duly countersigned by the concerned R.T.A. Andhra Pradesh. In  1970, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal allowed  the appeal  filed by the M.S.R.T.C. and set aside the  grant  in favour of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not  an existing permit holder and, therefore, not  entitled to  operate in the route in question.  Appellant  challenged that decision before the High Court by filing a writ but  it was dismissed.  On appeal by special leave to this Court  it was  contended  on behalf of the appellant  that  since  the appellant’s  permit had been countersigned by the  concerned R.T.A.  in  Andhra  Pradesh before the  permit  _granted  to M.S.R.T.C., the appellant must be considered as an  existing permit  holder  as contemplated by  the  scheme.   Secondly, under  the  ’Bellary  Scheme’,  there  was  only  a  partial exclusion  and not total exclusion.  Therefore all that  the R.T.A.  could  have  done under s. 68F(2) was  to  make  his permit from Bellary Town to Bellary border ineffective-  and not  to  cancel  his permit alto-ether  and  lastly,  Mysore Revenue  Appellate  Tribunal could not  have  cancelled  his permit.  Only R.T.A. could do so under s. 68F(2). 563 Dismissing the appeal, HELD:     (i)  The  appellant  was not  an  existing  permit holder  at  any rate on July 28, 1964  when  the  M.S.R.T.C. applied  for a permit for the route in question.   In  Abdul Gafoor  v.  State  of Mysore, [1962] 1  S.C.R.  909  it  was observed  by  this  Court that when a  scheme  prepared  and published   under  s.  68-C  has  been  approved   and   the application has been made in the proper manner, nothing more remains  to be decided by the Regional  Transport  Authority and  it  has no option to refuse the grant  of  the  permit. Further, the date on which the transport undertaking applies u/s. 68F(1) for the permit, that must be date with reference to  which  the expression "existing permit holder"  must  be interpreted. [567 H] T.   N.   Raghunatha   Reddy  v.  Mysore   State   Transport Authority, [1970] 3 S.C.R. 780 referred to. (ii) Under  the  Bellary  scheme,  the  only  persons  whose permits  are saved are those existing permit holders on  the inter-State routes and not all existing Permit holders.  Be- fore the permit holders can be considered as existing permit holders  of  the concerned inter-State, they must  not  only have  obtained a permit from the concerned R.T.A., in  their home  State,  they  must have  also  obtained  the  counter- signature  of  the concerned States.   Until  they  obtained countersignature  of  these, they cannot  be  considered  as existing permit holders of the concerned inter-State routes. [568 G] C.A.  Nos.  1415-1443 of 1969 decided on October  17,  1967, referred to. (iii)     It  is  true  that the  Mysore  Revenue  Appellate Tribunal  could  not  have  cancelled  the  permit  of   the appellant.   Cancellation of the permit under s.  68F(2)  of the  Act, can only be done by the concerned R.T.A.  but  the R.T.A.  in  the present case, did not take action  under  s. 68F(2)  initially  because of the pendency  of  the  appeals before  the  appellate authorities and because of  the  stay orders  issued by the High Court and this  Court.   However, the  functions  of  the  R.T.A.  under  s.  68F  are  merely ministerial   and  on  this  technical  ground  alone,   the appellant cannot succeed. [569 E] Satndard Motor Union Pvt.  Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors., [1969] 1 S.C.R. 464, discussed and distinguished.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1167  of 1971. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated August  10, 1971 of the Mysore High Court in  Writ  Petition No. 3244 of 1970. C.   K.  Daphtary, A. K. Sen, S. S. Javali and B. P.  Singh, for the appellant. Niren  De, Attorney-General for India, Shyamla Pappu and  J. Ramamurthi for respondent No. 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J.-The appellant is a transport operator.  He applied for  and obtained a permit from the R.T.A., Chitradurga  for the  inter-state route from Chitradurga in Mysore  State  to Srisaila in 564 Andhra  Pradesh,  on  January 18, 1964.   Even  before  this permit  was  issued  to him, the Government  of  Mysore  had notified a draft scheme under s. 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1939  (to  be  hereinafter referred  to  as  the  Act) providing for the operation of the trunk routes by the State Transport Undertaking in the Bellary District.   M.S.R.T.C., a  State  Transport Undertaking and  other  rival  claimants objected  to  the  issue of the permit in  question  to  the appellant  but  their  objections  were  over-ruled  by  the R.T.A., Chitradurga.  Aggrieved by that order M.S.R.T.C. and other  rival claimants took up the matter in appeal  to  the Mysore  State  Transport Appellate Tribunal.   Meanwhile  on April  18, 1964, the Government issued a notification  under s.  68D(3)  of the Act approving the  draft  scheme  earlier issued  by  it.  That scheme is known as  "Bellary  scheme". One of the clauses in the scheme provides "The  State Transport Undertaking will operate  services  on all  the routes to the complete exclusion of  their  persons except in regard to the portions of the interdistrict routes lying  outside  the Bellary District.  The  existing  permit holders on inter-state routes, may continue to operate  such inter-state  routes  subject  to the  condition  that  their permits  shall  be  rendered ineffective  by  the  competent authority  for the over-lapping portion in the  District  of Bellary." This scheme was published in the official gazette on May  7, 1964.   Thereafter M.S.R.T.C. applied for permits  under  s. 68F  on July 28, 1964 for the routes nationalised under  the "Bellary scheme".  Till then the appellant had not  obtained the  countersignature  of  the concerned  R.T.A.  in  Andhra Pradesh  as required by s. 63(1) of the Act for  the  inter- state permit issued to him.  The appeal filed by  M.S.R.T.C. was  dismissed  by  the Mysore   State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal  on  November  2,  1964.   As  against  that  order M.S.R.T.C. went up in appeal to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal  on December 9, 1964.  During the pendency of  that appeal,  the  appellant obtained counter-signatures  of  the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh on June 23, 1965 for  his interstate  permit.  In June, 1967, the  R.T.A.  Chitradurga renewed  the permit granted to the appellant on January  18, 1964.   That renewed permit, was duly countersigned  by  the concerned  R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh.  On July 30, 1970,  the Mysore  Revenue Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal  filed by  the M.S.R.T.C. and set aside the grant in favour of  the appellant  on  the ground that the appellant  not  being  an "existing  permit holder" as contemplated by the  scheme  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

not  entitled  to  operate in the route  in  question.   The appellant  challenged that decision before the  Mysore  High Court by means of a writ petition under  565 Art.  226 of the Constitution.  That petition was  dismissed by  the  Mysore High Court on August 10,  1971.   Thereafter this  appeal was brought after obtaining special leave  from this Court. Mr.  A. K. Sen, appearing for the appellant  challenged  the correctness  of  the decision of the High Court  on  various grounds.   He  contended  that  the  "Bellary  scheme"   was implemented  only on July 1, 1965 when the permit asked  for by  the M.S.R.T.C. was granted.  But before that permit  had been granted, the appellant’s permit has been counter-signed by the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh.  Hence he must be held to be an "existing permit holder on inter-state  route" as  contemplated in the clause quoted above.   According  to him  a scheme notified under s. 68D(3) of the Act cannot  be considered to have become effective until the R.T.A.  passes appropriate orders under s. 68F(2).  His next contention was that  under the "Bellary scheme", there was only  a  partial exclusion  and not total exclusion.  Therefore all that  the R.T.A.  could have done under Border ineffective and not  to cancel  his  permit.  His last contention was  that  in  any event, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal could not  have cancelled his permit. Let us now examine the correctness  of these contentions. Section 68(C) provides "Where  any State transport undertaking is of  opinion  that for  the  purpose  of  providing  an  efficient,   adequate, economical and properly co-Ordinated road transport service, it  is necessary in the public interest that road  transport services in general or any particular class of such  service in relation to any area or route or portion  thereof  should be  run  and  operated by the  State  transport  undertaking whether  to  the  exclusion, complete or  partial  of  other persons  or otherwise, the State transpoort undertaking  may prepare  a  scheme giving particulars of the nature  of  the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting  thereto as may be prescribed, and     shall cause every such  scheme to  be  published in the official gazette and also  in  such other manner as the State Government may direct." The  next  relevant section for our present  purpose  is  s. 68D(2) which says : "The State Government may, after considering the  objections and  after  giving  an opportunity to the  objector  or  his representatives and the representatives of the 566 State  transport undertaking to be heard in the  matter,  if they so desire, approve or modify the scheme." Sub-s. (3) of s. 68(D) provides: "The  scheme  as approved or modified under  subsection  (2) shall then be published in the Official Gazette by the State Government  and  the same shall thereupon become  final  and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which  it  relates  shall be called  the  notified  area  or notified route. Provided  that  no such scheme which relates to  any  inter- state route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme  unless it  has  been  published in the Official  Gazette  with  the previous approval of the Central Government." Herein  we are not concerned with a scheme which relates  to any  inter-state route.  Section 68F requires the  concerned R.T.A.  to  issue  stage  carriage  permits  to  the   State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

Transport Undertaking in pursuance of an approved scheme  if that  undertaking  applies  for  the  same,  notwithstanding anything contrary contained in Chapter IV of the Act.   Sub- s.  (2)  of  s.  68F(2) as it stood  at  the  relevant  time provided : "For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme  in respect  of a notified area or notified route, the  Regional Transport Authority may, by order- (a)  refuse to entertain any application for the renewal  of any other permit; (b) cancel     any existing permit; (c)  modify the terms of any existing permit so as to (i)  render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date; (ii) reduce  the  number of vehicles authorised to  be  used under the permit; (iii)     curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so  far  as  such permit relates to  the  notified  area  or notified route." The  power  of the R.T.A. under s. 68F(2) is  merely  minis- terial.   He has only to carry out the directions  contained in the scheme.  As observed by this Court in Abdul Gafoor v. State  of  Mysore(1),  that  when  a  scheme  prepared   and published   under  s.  68(C)  has  been  approved   and   an application has been made in pursuance of the scheme and  in the proper manner as specified (1) [1962] 1 S.C.R. 909  567 in Chapter IV of the Act, nothing more remains to be decided by  the R.T.A. It has no option to refuse the grant  of  the permit.  In that decision this Court further laid down  that when  deciding  what  action to take under  s.  68F(2),  the authority is tied down   by the terms and conditions of  the approved scheme and its duty  is   merely  to  do  what   is necessary  to  give  effect to  the  provisions      of  the scheme. In  T.  N.  Raghunatha  Reddy  v.  Mysore  State   Transport Authority(1)  it  was  urged on  behalf  of  the  appellant- operator that  the  expression "existing permit  holder"  in cl. (d) of that scheme   should  be  interpreted as  if  the scheme is ready on the date when   orders made under s.  68F came  into  effect.  Rejecting that  contention  this  Court observed "It  seems  to  us  that  this  is  not  a  correct  way  of interpreting  the  scheme.  The  scheme  as  approved,   was published  in  the  Government Gazette under  s.  68D(3)  on January 25, 1968 and on March 1, 1968, the Mysore undertaking applied  under s. 68F(1) to operate buses    from    January 1968 or a later date. As held by this   Court    in    Abdul Gafoor v. State of Mysore "when a  scheme    prepared    and published under s. 68-C has been   approved      and      an               application has been made in pursuance of  the               scheme  and in the proper manner as  specified               in Ch. IV, nothing more remains to be  decided               by the Regional Transport Authority and it has               no option  to refuse the grant of the  permit"               and "when taking     action  under s.  68-F(1)               the  Regional  Transport  Authority  does  not               exercise any quasi-judicial function and acts               wholly in a ministerial capacity". It seems to               us    that even if the date of publication may               not be the appropriate  date-we do not  decide               that it is not an    appropriate date-at least               the date on which the trans- port undertaking  applies under s. 68F(1) for a permit  must               be  the  date  with  reference  to  which  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

             expression"   existing permit holder"-must  be               interpreted. If this is the crucial date, then               it  is quite clear that the appellant was  not               an existing permit holder because he did not               obtain his counter-signature till July, 1968". Applying  the  ratio of that decision to the  facts  of  the present  case,  it is clear that the appellant  was  not  an "existing  permit holder" at any rate on July 28, 1964  when the  M.S.R.T.C.  applied  for  a permit  for  the  route  in question. In this view it is  not  necessary  for us  to  go into the question whether the scheme         can be said  to have been implemented on May 7, 1964 when the          same was  published  in  the Gazette after the  approval  of  the Government under s. 68D(3). (1)       [1970] 3 S.C.R. 780. 568 It  was  next contended that in view of the  fact  that  the permit had been issued to the appellant on January 18, 1964, we must hold that when on July 28, 1964, M.S.R.T.C. applied for  a permit on the route, the appellant was  an  "existing permit holder".  We see no merit in this contention.   Under the  scheme  the only persons whose permits  are  saved  are those  "existing permit holders on the  inter-state  routes" and not all "existing permit holders".  A contention similar to  the one urged before us was considered and  rejected  by this  Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1415-1443 of 1969  decided on  October 17, 1969.  Rejecting the appellant’s  contention therein this Court observed : "Mr.  Chagla’s contention is that in view of s. 63 (1 )  the appellants must be considered as existing permit holders  as the permits given to them continue to be valid.  It is  true               that in view of s. 6 3 (1) on the basis of the               permits  given  to the appellants  for  inter-               state routes, they were entitled to operate in               the   routes  concerned  from   the   starting               terminus till the route reaches the borders of               the  Mysore State.  In other words the  inter-               state  permit given to them operated as  intra               state  permits for a portion of the  route  to               which they were granted till those permits are               countersigned   by  the  concerned  State   or               States.   But  that  fact does  not  make  the               holders  of those permits as "existing  permit               holders  on  the interstate  routes".   Before               they  can  be considered  as  existing  permit               holders  of  the concerned  inter-state,  they               must not only have obtained a permit from  the               concerned  R.T.O.  in their home  State,  they               must have also obtained the  counter-signature               of the concerned States.  Until they  obtained               counter-signatures  of these, they  cannot  be               considered  as existing permit holders of  the               concerned inter-state state routes." The  question whether the "Bellery Scheme" provides for  the total exclusion of all operators on the nationalised  routes or  it  merely  provides for partial exclusion  is,  in  our opinion, wholly irrelevant.  All that we have to see is what the scheme says ?  Whom does it exclude?  It is quite  plain from  the language of  the clause referred to  earlier  that all operators excepting those mentioned therein are excluded from the nationalised routes.  To the general exclusion made therein, there are two exceptions.  The first one relates to inter-district  operators and the second to existing  permit holders on inter-state routes.  The appellant does not claim to come under the first exception.  For the reasons  already

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

mentioned  his case is not covered by the second  exception. We  are unable to agree with Mr. A. K. Sen, Counsel for  the appellant that the decision of this Court in Standard  Motor Union Pvt.  Ltd.  569 v.   State  of Kerala and ors. (1) is of any  assistance  to the  appellant.  In that case this Court was called upon  to consider  a scheme framed under the Act read with rule 3  of the  Kerala  Motor Vehicles (State Transport)  Rules,  1960. The  rule  in question divided the scheme broadly  into  two categories  (1) complete exclusion schemes and  (2)  partial exclusion  schemes.  The question for decision in that  case was  whether  the scheme before this Court  was  a  complete exclusion  scheme  or  a  partial  exclusion  scheme.   That question  has  no  relevance for our  present  purpose.   As mentioned  earlier  all that we have to see is  whether  the appellant  can  be  considered as  an  operator  holding  an existing  permit on interstate route at the  relevant  time. For  the reasons already mentioned we do not think  that  he was one such. Mr. Sen is right in his contention that the modification  or cancellation  of  the  permit granted, for  the  purpose  of giving effect to an approved scheme must be effected by  the concerned  R.T.A. It is true that in this case  the  R.T’.A. was  not  approached  to cancel the permit  granted  to  the appellant.   But  even after the M.S.R.T.C.  applied  for  a permit for the route in question, R.T.A. renewed the  permit granted to the appellant.  It was impermissible for it to do so.   The  appellant  is right in his  contention  that  the validity  of the renewal was not before the  Mysore  Revenue Appellate  Tribunal.   The  appeal  that  was  before   that Tribunal  was  one challenging the  original  grant.   Hence technically  Mr.  Sen is right in his  contention  that  the Tribunal could not have done what the R.T.A. was required to do.  But  as mentioned earlier the functions of  the  R.T.A. under s. 68F are merely ministerial.  It was bound to  carry out  the  directions given in the scheme.   But  the  R.T.A. evidently  did  not take action under s.  68F(2),  initially because of the pendency of the appeals before the  appellate authorities and thereafter he could not take action  because of  the  stay  order issued by the  High  Court  during  the pendency  of the writ petition and by this Court  after  the appeal was filed.  We see no purpose in allowing this appeal on a purely technical ground as that course cannot give  any relief to the appellant.  The R.T.A. is bound to cancel  his pen-nit in pursuance of the scheme. For  the reasons mentioned above this appeal fails  and  the same is dismissed.  But in the circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed (1) [1969] 1 S.C.R. 464. 2-L1 52SupCI/73 570