http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: PRAVEEN ANSARI & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/10/1980

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR  516            1981 SCR  (1) 981  1980 SCC  (4) 503

ACT:      Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, sections 68-F(1), section 68- F(1-A) and  68-F  (1-C),  interpretation  of-When  once  the Corporation made  an application  for temporary  permits for the full  strength but  something short of it, whether there was no  power Left in the State Transport Authority to grant temporary  permits  to  anyone  else-words  and  phrases-The expression "any  person" comprehends  any person  even other than the Corporation.

HEADNOTE:      Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court ^      HELD:      1. The  combined reading  of  section  68-F  (1-A)  and section 68-F  (1-C) makes  it clear that keeping in view the strength of  the vehicles  filed in  public interest  by the competent authority under section 68-F (1-A), for the period intervening between  the date  of publication  of the scheme and the  date of  publication of  the approved  or  modified scheme, the  authority should  first examine the application for number  of temporary permits made by the Corporation. If the Corporation  has made  application for temporary permits covering all  tho vacancies, the authority must grant permit to the  Corporation to tho exclusion of any other applicant, as section  68-F(1)  makes  it  obligatory  upon  the  State Transport Authority  or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case  may be, to grant the same. If the Corporation does not apply  for all  the  permits  but  only  for  some,  the inescapable  conclusion  will  be  that  for  tho  remaining strength the  Corporation has  made no  application for  the temporary permits and section 68-F (1-C) of the Act squarely being  attracted,  the  State  Transport  Authority  or  the Regional Transport  Authority, as the case may be, will have to examine  the application  for temporary  permits made  by persons other  than the Corporation and if they are found to be competent  eligible and  qualified they  may have  to  be granted permits  for the  benefit of  the  largo  travelling public. That  is why  power to  increase strength  of  fleet operating on the route is conferred under section 68-F (1-A) of the  Act and  has to  be  exercised  in  public  interest meaning transport  facility to  travelling public.  In  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

case there  were 7  vacancies  for  temporary  permits.  The Corporation applied  for only  3. It  was incumbent upon the State Transport  Authority to  consider the  applications of the present  appellants for the remaining four vacancies and grant four permits according to law. [986A-D]      2. The expression "any person" in section 68-F (1-C) of the Motor  Vehicles Act  would comprehend any person to mean any one other than the Corporation. [985A-B]]      Section 68-F  (1-C) caters  to such a situation where a scheme has  been published  and, therefore,  the Corporation would be  entitled to  temporary permits  till the  approved scheme is  published, yet  if tho  Corporation is  unable to provide vehicles for the optimum strength fixed by the State Transport 982 Authority or  the Regional  Transport Authority, as the case may  be,  the  concerned  authority  in  exercise  of  power conferred specifically  upon it  by section  68-F (1-C)  can grant  temporary   permits  to   persons  other   than   the Corporation to  operate vehicles  on the route for which the scheme is  published till  modified or  approved  scheme  is published. [984C-E]      3. In  interpreting the  provisions of  Chapter IV-A of Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939  it is, undoubtedly, true that the Corporation enjoys a preferential treatment in the matter of obtaining permits  the authority under the Act must not ever lose sight  of the  fact that the primary consideration must be the  service available  to the  travelling public.  While interpreting  the  provision  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act, undoubtedly, the  competing claims  between the  Corporation and  the  other  private  operators  may  be  examined  with reference to  the provisions  of the  Act. But  the  overall consideration namely  the service  is for the benefit of the travelling public  should never  be overlooked for a moment. [985F-G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2520 of 1980.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated 3-12-1979  of the  Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No, NIL of 1979.      Yogeshwar  Prasad   and  Mrs.   Rani  Chhabra  for  the Appellants.      O. P. Rana and P. K. Pillai for the Respondents,      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-      DESAI, J.-The  appellants applied for temporary permits under section  68-F (1-C)  for plying the passenger vehicles on      Khurja-Pahasu-Chhatari-Dabai-Rajghat-Ramghat-Atrauli route (route  for  short)  which  applications  came  to  be rejected by  the State  Transport Authority and their appeal to the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal and writ petition to the High Court, of Allahabad did not meet with success.      It is  a common  ground that  in respect of the route a scheme has  been prepared and published under section 68C of Chapter IV-A  of Motor  Vehicles Act,  1939.  The  route  in question  is  an  inter  regional  route  and  therefore  an application for  temporary permit for the period intervening between the  date of  publication of the scheme and the date of publication  of the approved or modified scheme has to be made to  the State  Transport Authority  under sec. 68(1-C). Ignoring the  previous history  of the  litigation  for  the present,  it   may  be  noticed  that  the  appellants  made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

applications to the State Trans port Authority for grants of temporary permits  to ply  their vehicles  on the route. The U.P.  State  Road  Transport  Corporation  (Corporation  for short) also made an application for grant of three temporary 983 permits for  the same  purpose and  the application  of  the Corporation  for   three  permits   was  granted  while  the application made  by each  of the appellants was rejected on The ground  that once a scheme has been published in view of the provision  contained in  Sec. 68-F(1-A)  the Corporation alone to  the exclusion  of others, is entitled to apply for temporary permit  and if  such application  is made  by  the Corporation and  granted no one else is entitled to obtain a temporary permit.  This  decision  of  the  State  Transport Authority has  been  upheld  both  by  the  State  Transport Appellate Tribunal and the High Court      Section 68-F(1)  makes it  obligatory  upon  the  State Transport Authority  or Regional  Transport Authority as the case may  be to  grant permit of the nature envisaged in the section to  the Corporation  to the  exclusion of  any other applicant. Section  68-F (1-A)  confers power  on the  State Transport Authority  or the  Regional Transport Authority as the case may be, for the period intervening between the date of publication  of the scheme and the date of publication of the approved  or  modified  scheme  to  increase  in  public interest the  number of  vehicles operating  on the route or the area  in respect  of which the scheme has been published by State Transport Corporation under section 68C and further enables the  Corporation to  apply for  temporary permits to ply  the   vehicles  during   the   interregnum.   On   such applications being  made it  is obligatory  upon  the  State Transport Authority  or the  Regional Transport Authority as the case may be to grant such temporary permits. Section 68- F (1-B) is not relevant for the present purpose.      Section 68-F(1-C) reads as under:           "If no  application for a temporary permit is made      under sub-section  (l-A), the State Transport Authority      or the  Regional Transport  Authority, as  the case may      be, may  grant, subject  to such  conditions as  it may      think fit, temporary permit to any person in respect of      the area  or route  or portion thereof specified in the      scheme and  the permit  so granted  shall cease  to  be      effective on  the  issue  of  a  permit  to  the  State      Transport Undertaking  in respect of that area or route      or portion thereof." Section 68-F  (1D) takes  away the  power of permit granting authority to  grant or  renew any  permit during  the period intervening between  the date  of publication, under section 68-C of  any scheme  and the  date  of  publication  of  the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person for any class of  road transport  service in  relation to an area or route or  portion thereof  covered by  such scheme except as provided in sub-section ((1-A) and sub-section (1-C). 984      The Corporation  has published  a scheme  in respect of the route. Even when a scheme is published it is open to the State  Transport   Authority  or   the  Regional   Transport Authority as  the case  may be to fix or increase the number of vehicles  that may operate on the route. But the power to increase the number must be exercised in public interest. It is common  ground that the strength of vehicles on the route in question  was raised from 13 to 20. Hence in view of this raising of  the  strength,  7  temporary  permits  could  be granted. However,  in view  of the  provision  contained  in section 68-F(1-A) consequent upon the scheme being published

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

by the  Corporation under  section 68-C  in respect  of  the route the  Corporation will be entitled to all the temporary permits  to   the  exclusion  of  any  other  operator.  But Legislature was  aware of  a possible  situation  where  the Corporation though  entitled to  temporary  permits  to  the exclusion of  other operators  may not  be in  a position to avail of  this statutory right. Section 68-F(1-C) appears to have been  introduced to meet with the situation arising out of the  inability of the Corporation to obtain all available temporary  permits.  Section  68-F(1-C)  caters  to  such  a situation where  a scheme has been published and, therefore, the Corporation would be entitled, to temporary permits till the approved  scheme is published, yet if the Corporation is unable  to   provide  service  by  obtaining  all  requisite temporary permits,  the State  Transport  Authority  or  the Regional Transport Authority as the case may be, in exercise of power conferred specifically upon it by section 68-F(1-C) can grant  temporary  permits  to  persons  other  than  the Corporation to  operate vehicles  on the route for which the scheme is  published till  modified or  approved  scheme  is published.      It is  not in  dispute that  there are  7 vacancies for temporary permits.  It is  an  admitted  position  that  the Corporation applied  for only 3 permits. The State Transport Authority has  not recorded  finding that in public interest remaining  4   permits  were  not  required  to  be  issued. Undoubtedly, therefore,  there were  4 vacancies for which 4 temporary permits  could be  issued by  the State  Transport Authority on  this inter  regional  route.  Undoubtedly  the permits will have to be temporary permits because the scheme has been  published in  respect of  the route  under section 68C.      The State  Transport  Authority,  the  State  Transport Appellate Tribunal and, the High Court fell into an error by interpreting section 68-F(1-C) only to mean that even though there are 7 vacancies and the Corporation applied for only 3 temporary permits,  once the Corporation made an application for  temporary   permits  not  for  the  full  strength  but something short of it there was no power left in 985 the State  Transport Authority to grant temporary permits to any one  else. Obviously section 68-F(1-C) does not admit of such a construction. The State Transport Authority has power under sub  section (1-C)  to grant  temporary permit  to any person in  respect of  the area or the route or part thereof specified in  the scheme.  The expression ’any person’ would comprehend any  person even  other than the Corporation. One has to  read section  68-F  (1-A)  and  section  68-F  (1-C) harmoniously.  If  the  Corporation  applies  for  temporary permits undoubtedly  the State  Transport  Authority  cannot grant permit  to any one else if the Corporation has applied for all the permits. But section 68-F(1-C) clearly envisaged a situation  where application for a temporary permit is not made under  section 68-F(1-A)  by the Corporation. And there is felt need for providing transport service on the route in question.      Now it  cannot be gain said that there were 7 vacancies for temporary  permits because  the strength  was  increased from 13  to 20.  The State Transport Authority is the proper authority lo  decide the strength of vehicles to be plied on a route.  If the  Corporation is willing to operate vehicles to the  maximum strength  undoubtedly  the  State  Transport Authority will have to grant permit to the Corporation under section 68-F(1-A)  to the  exclusion of  others. But  if the Corporation was  unable to  provide vehicles for the optimum

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

strength  fixed   by  the   State  Transport  Authority  the remaining permits  will have  to be  granted  to  any  other person willing  Jo obtain  temporary permit  and ply vehicle because in  respect of the remaining strength there would be no application  by the  Corporation  and  section  68-F(1-C) would be  squarely attracted. In interpreting the provisions of  Chapter   IV-A  of   Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939  it  is undoubtedly true  that the Corporation enjoys a preferential treatment in  the matter of obtaining permits. The authority under the  Act must not ever lose sight of the fact that the primary consideration  must be  the service available to the travelling public.  While interpreting the provisions of the Motor Vehicles  Act undoubtedly the competing claims between the Corporation  and the  other  private  operators  may  be examined with  reference to  the provisions  of the Act. But the overall  consideration namely  the service  is  for  the benefit of  the travelling public should never be overlooked for a moment.      Reverting to  the facts of this case if the approach of the High  Court is  accepted it  would lead  to a  startling result. Assuming  there  were  10  vacancies  for  temporary permits and  the Corporation  was able  to provide  only one vehicle and therefore applied for only one permit, according to the  State Transport  Appellate Tribunal  as well  as the High Court  no temporary  permit can  be granted  to any one else 986 for the  remaining 9  vacancies. Such  is not  the  position emerging from  a combined  reading of  section 68-F(1-A) and Section  68-F(1-C).  The  correct  approach  would  be  that keeping in  view the  strength of  the vehicles fixed by the competent authority,  the authority should first examine the application for  number of  temporary permits  made  by  the Corporation. If  the Corporation  has made  application  for temporary permits covering all the vacancies the matter ends there. But  if the  Corporation does  not apply  for all the permits but  only for  some, the  inescapable conclusion  is that for  the remaining strength the Corporation has made no application for  the temporary permits and section 68-F(1-C) would  be  squarely  attracted.  In  That  event  the  State Transport Authority  or the  Regional Transport Authority as the case  may be  will have  to examine  the application for temporary permits made by persons other than the Corporation and  if  they  are  found  to  be  competent,  eligible  and qualified they  may have  to  be  granted  permits  for  the benefit of the large travelling public. That is why power to increase  strength  of  fleet  operating  on  the  route  is conferred and has to be exercised in public interest meaning transport facility  to travelling public. In this case there were 7  vacancies for  temporary  permits.  The  Corporation applied  for  only  3.  It  was  incumbent  upon  the  State Transport Authority  to consider  the  applications  of  the present appellants  for the  remaining 4 vacancies and grant four permits according to law.      Accordingly this  appeal is  allowed and  the orders of the State Transport Authority, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and  the High Court are set aside and the matter is remitted to  the State  Transport Authority  to consider the applications of  the present  appellants for the remaining 4 vacancies  and   pass  orders   according  to  law.  In  the circumstances of  this case,  there will  be no  order as to costs. S.R                                          Appeal allowed. 987

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