ANNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.versusREGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, DHARMAPURI & ORS.

                                                                               69

                                                                                     A

                 ANNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.
                                          v.
    REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, DHARMAPURI & ORS.
                                    July 23, 1980                                    B.

    (N. L. UNTWALIA, P. N. SHINGHAL            AND   v. D. TULUPURKAR, JJ.]
         Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), S 68F(1D) and Proviso-Scope and
    applicability.
         Section 68F(lD) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides that no permit
    shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date
                                                                                     c
    of publiciition, 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 o,r 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)       D
    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       E
    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.
                                                                                     F
        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 (lD) of section 68, but held on a reading
    of the decision in Cheran Transport Co. Ltd. v. Kanan Lorry Service & Anr.       G
    (1977) 2 SCR 389, that the case fell within the purview of the "rider" to
(   proposition no. 2 set out in tliat judgment with reference to the proviso to
    section (lD) of section 68F of the Act. and allowed the revision petitions.
        Allowing the appeals to this Court,
         HELD : (i) By virtue of the clear provmon of sub-section (10) of sec-
    tion 68F of the Act, no permit could be granted or renewed during the period     H
    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 transpo!1 service. [72E]
                                SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A        (ii) The High Court clearly went wrong in thinking that the case fell
    within the purview of the proviso to sub-section (ID) 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 ·~pplicab!e 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]
B
         In the ins_tant 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]
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos . 2780-2782 of
    1977.

c        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. Sam path
D   for the Respondent.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         S~INGHAL, 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 Trans-
E   port 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 li~ht
    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 '
F   the disposal of the renewal applications of the revision petitioners.

          The fads 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.
G
           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.
H         Balkrishna Bus Service and Company, respondent No. 2, was a
     priva;te operator on the aforesaid route.. Its p~rmit was. d~e to ex~ire
     on October 9, 1974, arid it applied for its renewal w1thm the time
                ANNA TRANSPORT v. REGioNAL TRANSPORT (Shingal, J.)           71


     prescribed by law. Its application was notified on June 5, 1974, under        A
     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 fixedi 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 bearing of the matter which was pending before
     the Regional Transport Authority. A draft scheme for the route from
I
     Mettur to Kallakurichi via Omalur and Salem was published on June 4,
                                                                                   c
~·
      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        D
      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
                                          1



      that led to the passing of the impugined judgment.

         The facts are, therefore, quite simple. There is no controversy           E
     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       F
      rightly took the view that the controversy before it fell within the pur-
      view of sub-section (lD) thereof. It, however, held on a reading of
      this Court's decision in Cheran Transport Co. Ltd. v. Kanan Lorry Ser-
      vice & Anr.,(l) that the case full 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 (lD) of section 68F ofi the Act. The sub-      G
      section reads as follows,- .
                (lD) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (lA) or sub-
           section (lC) no permit shall be granted or renewed during the
           period intervening between the date of publication, under sec-
           tion 68C of any scheme and the date of publication of the ap-           H
           proved or modified scheme, in favour of any person for any class
          ~l)   [1977] 2 S.C.R. 389.
    72                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A        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
B        renewed shall cease 'to be effective on. the publication of the scheme
         under sub-section (3) of section 680.
    It is not in COllltroversy that sub-sectlion {lA) or sub-s·ection (lC) of
    section 68F are not applicable to the controversy. The rest of sub-
    section (lD) provides that no permit shall be granted or "renewed"
    during the period intervening between the date of publication under
c   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 that scheme.
          As has been stated, a draft scheme of road transport service of
    the appellant Corporation was published on June 4, 1976, under sec-
D   tion 68C of the Act and, as has been mentioned, that scheme over-
    lapped a section of the Salem-Krishnagiri route. It follows, therefore,
    that by virtue of the clear provision of sub-section {lD) 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, I976, and the date of publication
E   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 (ID)' and it consequently erred in taking into considaa-
    tion the so-called rider to proposition No. 2 mentioned. in this Court's
F   judgment in Cheran's case (supra). The proviso would have been ap-
    plicable only if the period of operation of the permit of the respondents
    had expired after the publication of the scheme prepared under sec-
    ttion 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 appli-
G   cation for a long time by obtaining a stay order. On a plain reading
     of sub-section (ID) of section 68F of the Act, we hav1e 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
H    dismissed. The stay orders are vacated.

    N.V.K.                                                   Appeals allowed.