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