Holding

Section 14 read with Section 20(3) of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 bars the grant or renewal of any permit for a contract carriage, including special permits under section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, thereby conferring a monopoly on the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.

Summary

D.P. Sharma, owner of a public service vehicle, applied for a special permit under section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Regional Transport Authority refused, invoking the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, which it said barred such permits. A single judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed Sharma’s writ petition, but the Division Bench reversed, holding that only vehicles with a special permit before the Act’s commencement were excluded from the definition of ‘contract carriage’ and thus a special permit could still be granted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, interpreting section 3(g) of the Karnataka Act to mean that the phrase “has been issued” refers to permits issued after the Act’s commencement, and held that section 14 read with section 20(3) of the Karnataka Act prohibits the grant or renewal of any permit for a contract carriage, including special permits, thereby giving a monopoly to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and Sharma’s writ petition dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether, after the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 came into force, a special permit under section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 can be granted.
Interpretation of the phrase ‘has been issued’ in section 3(g) of the Karnataka Act – does it refer to permits issued before or after the Act’s commencement.
Whether a public service vehicle without a pre‑existing special permit falls within the definition of ‘contract carriage’ under section 3(g) and is thus subject to the Act’s prohibition on permits.
Whether section 14 read with section 20(3) of the Karnataka Act bars the grant or renewal of any permit, including special permits, for contract carriages.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976s. 14, s. 20(3), s. 3(g), s. 3(m)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 62, s. 63, s. 63(6), s. 68F

Subjects

special permitcontract carriageKarnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) ActMotor Vehicles Actmonopolyinterpretation of 'has been'acquisition of contract carriagespublic service vehiclepermit renewal

Judgment

SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, I
A 1
' BANGALORE AND ANOTHER
v.
D.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS

··~
DECEMBER 12, 1988
B
[M.M. DUTT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act 1939: Sections 62, 63 and 63(6)-'Special
permit' grant 'of~Whether permissible after Karnataka Contract Car-
riages Acquisition Act 1976 came into force. ' ·
c Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Att 1976: Sections
3(g), 3(m), 14 and 20(3)-'Contract Carriage'-'Special Permit'-
Jssuance of--Undersection 63(6)-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-:-Permissibi-
lity of.

D Words and Phrases-'Has been'-Meaning of.

Respondent No. 1, the owner of a public service vehicle, made an
application to the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of a
'special· permit' under section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
The Regional Transport Authority rejected the said application on the
£ ground that the provisions of the Karnataka Contract Carriages
(Acquisition) Act, 1976 prohibited the grant of such permit.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of refusal, respondent No. 1
filed a writ petition in the High Court and a Single Judge of the High
Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Regional Transport
F Authority to consider the application of respondent No. 1 for the grant
of a special permit.
I
The Regional Transport Authority preferred a writ appeal. The
Division Bench of the High Court taking the view that the intention of
the Legislature was that only a public service vehicle in relation to
G which a special permit had been issued when the 1976 Act came into
force and which was not operating as a stage carriage should be ac-
quired, held that a public service vehicle in relation to which a special
permit had not been issued when the Act came into force would not
come within the definition of 'contract carriage' under section 3(g) of
the Act and the prohibition contained in section 20 of the Act against the
H grant of contract carriage permit would not extend to the grant of
1038
SECY.; REGIONAL TPT .. AUTHORITY v. D.P. SHARMA 1039

special permit under sub-section 6 of section 63 of the Motor Vehicles
A
Act. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

The Regional Transport Authority appealed by special leave to
this Court. On the question: whether after the coming into force of the
Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, a special permit
under section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 can be granted B
under the Act. "

Allowing the appeals,

HELD: 1. Section 14 read with Section 20(3) of the Karnataka
Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 confers a monopoly on the
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation to run vehicles as con- c
tract carriages. [IOSOA]

2. Section 14 read with section 20(3) of the Act clearly prohibits
the grant of renewal of any permit for the running of any contract
carriage. [I049G] D

3. The High Court was not therefore right in its view that a public
service vehicle in relation to which a special permit had not been Issued
when the Act came into force, would not com~ within the defmition of
'contract carriage' in section 3(g) and the prohibition contained in Sec-
tion 20 of the Act against the grant of contract carriage permit cannot
extend to grant of special permit under Section 63( 6) of the Motor
Vehicles Act. [IOSOB-CJ

4. Under clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3(g) of the Act if a special
permit under Section 63(6) or a temporary permit l!nder Section 62(1)
or sub-section (1-C) of Section 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act has been F
\ issued, it will came within the purview of the definition of 'contract
carriage'. [1046C-D] ·

5. If a special permit under Section 62(1) or under Section 63(6)
of the Motor Vehicles Act was in force on January 30, 1976 in respect of
a stage carriage, such a stage carriage will not be a 'contract carriage' G
within the meaning of Section 3(g) of the Act. [1046D]

6. Whether the expression 'has been' occurring in a provision of
a statute denotes .transaction prior to the enactment of the statute in
., question or a transaction after the coming into force of the statute will
depend upon the intention of the Legislature to be gathered from the H
I.

1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R.
!
provision in .which the said expression occurs or from the other provi-
A
sions of the statute. [1046H; 1047A)

In the instant case, the .words 'has been' contemplate the issuance
of a special permit or a temporary permit as preferred to in clauses (i)
and ·(ii) of Section 3(g) of the Act after the enactment of the Act .which is
B clear from exclusion clause (ii) of Section 3(g) .which excludes a stage
carriage from the definitio11 of 'contract carriage', if special permits
issued under section 62(1) or Section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act
.were in force on January 30, 1976. [1049F-G)

7. The .words 'contract carriage occurring in Section 3(m) must
be read in ihe light of the. defmition as contained in section 3(g) of the
c Act. so· read, it is manifest that sectilin 14 read .with section 20(3) of the ·
Act clearly bars the making of any application for a permit or for
renewal of an existing permit for the running of a vehicle, .whether a .
contract carriage or a stage carriage, as a contract carriage. [ 1049D-E]

State of Karnataka v. Shri Ranganatha Reddy, [1978[ I SCR 641
and Athlumney Ex parte Wilson, [1898[ 2 QB 547 referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
3337-38 of 1982.

E From the Judgments and order. dated 5.7.80 and 3.2.1981 of the
Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 543/1976 and 1217 of 1981
respectively.

R.N. Narasimamurthy, Attorney General and P.R. Ramasesh
for the Appellants.
F
G.L. Sanghi, A.K. Sen, H.B. Datar, K.R. Nagaraja, ,-
N. Ganpathy, K.R. Nambiar, R.P. Wadh.wani, N.D.B: Raju,
R. Ranga S.wamy, R.B. Datar and Ms. C.K. Sucharita for the
Respondents.
:.. 1
G R.S. Hegde for the impleded party.
'
The
, Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DUTT, J. These appeals by special leave preferred at the
instance of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore,
H and the State of Karnataka, are directed against the judgment of the
'.<

SECY., REGIONAL TPT. AUTHORITYv. D.P. SHARMA [DUTT, J.] 1041
, I

Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal A
preferred by the appellants and affirming that of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court whereby the Rule issued on the writ petition
filed by the respondent No. I D.P. Sharma was made absolute.

The respondent No. I, who is the owner of a public service
B
vehicle, made an application on October 10, 1976 to the Regional
Transport Authority for the grant of a special permit under sub-section
(6) of section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the period from
November 15, 1976 to November 22, 1976. The Regional Transport
Authority rejected the said application on the ground that the provi-
sions of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976,
hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', prohibit the grant of such permits. c
The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the refusal by the Regional
Transport Authority to grant a special permit filed a writ petition in
the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court ailowed the
writ petition and directed the Regional Transport Authority to con-
sider the application of the respondent No. l for the grant of special
D
permit.

Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants
preferred a writ appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court. The
Bench took the view that the intention of the Legislature was that only
a public service vehicle in relation to which a special permit had been
E
issued when the Act came into force and which was not operating as a
stage carriage should be acquired. Accordingly, it was held that a
public service vehicle in relation to which a special permit had not
been issued when the Act came into force would not come within the
definition of 'contract carriage' under section 3(g) of the Act and the
prohibition contained in section 28 of the Act against the grant of
F
contract carriage .permit would not extend to the grant of special
permit under sub-section (6) of section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
In that view of the matter, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal
preferred by the appellants.

The only point that is involved in these appeals is whether after
the coming into force of the Act, a special permit under section 63(6) G
of the Motor Vehicles Act can be granted under the Act.

The Act is to provide for the acquisition of contract carriages and
for matters incidental, ancillary or subservient thereto. The preamble
provides, inter a/ia as follows:
H
1042 • SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
( '

"Whereas contract carriages and certain other categories of
A
public service vehicles are being operated in the State in a
manner highly· detrimental and prejudicial to public
interest;

And Whereas with a view to prevent such misuse and
B also to provide betier facilities for the transport of passen-
.. gers by road and to give effect to the policy of the State
·towards securing that the ownership and control of the
material resources of the community are so distributed as
best to subserve the common good and that the operation .r
')
·' of the economic system does not ~esult in the concentration
.! .of wealth· and ineans of production to the comm oil ,detri- ·.
c l ;ment; . '
. 1 And Whereas for the aforesaid purposes it is consi-
dered necessary to provide for the acquisition of contract
carriages and certain other categories of public service •
D vehicles in the State and for matters incidential, 1tncillary or
subservient thereto;"
'
It is apparent from the preamble of the Act that the primary
object of the Act is acquisition of contract carriages with a view to
preventing misuse and also to provide better facilities for the transport
E of bassengers by road. Besides the preamble, we may refer to the State-
ment of Objects and Reasons for the Act which will show the back-
ground for the. enactment of the Act. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons for the Act is as follows:

"A large number of contract carriages were being operated
F 'in the State to the detriment of public interest and were
also functioning stealthily as stage carriages. This ~ad to be
prevented. Article 39(b) and (c) enjoins upon the State to
see that the ownership and control of the material
'resources of the community are so distributed as best to
subserve the common good and that the operation of the
G economic system does not result in the concentration of
wealth to the common detriment.

In' view of the aforesaid it was considered necessary ·
io acquire the contract carriages run by private operators. ·
H Accordingly the Karnataka Contract Carriages
SECY., REGIONAL TPT. AUTHORITY v. D.P. SHARMA'{DUTT, J.I 1043·.
'
(Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 was promulgated. The Bill
A
~seeks to replace the Ordinance."

The constitutional validity of the Act was challenged before this.
Court and a Constitution Bench of Seven Judges in State of Karnaiaka
v. Shri Ranganatha Reddy, [1978] 1SCR641 upheld the validity of the
Act. In considering the question of validity of the Act, this Court B•
"
referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Act and on
the basis of various affidavits filed· on behalf of the State, observed that
the operators were misusing their permits granted fo them as contract
carriage permits, and that in many cases the vehicles were used as: ,
stage carriages picking up and dropping passengers in the way. Accord:
ingly, the Legi~lature thought that to prevent such misuse and to pro-
vide for better facilities to transport passengers and to the general c ,
public, it was necessary to acquire the vehicles, permits·and all rights.
title and interest of the contract carriage operators etc.

Keeping in view the objects and reasons for the enactment of the
Act, we have to consider whether after the'coming into force of the D·
Act, it is permissible to grant a special permit under section 68(6) of
the Motor Vehicles Act. But before we do that we may refer to the
Scheme of the Act.

We have already referred to the preamble to the Act providing
for the acquisition of contract carriages. The Act shall be deemed to E
have come into force on January 30, 1976 as provided in sub-section
(3) of section 1 of the Act. Section 2 contains a declaration that the Act
is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the
principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitu-
tion of India and the acquisition therefor of the contract carriages and
other property reforred to in section 4 of the Act. Section 3 is the F..
definition section. Clause (g) of section 3 is an extended definition of
"contract carriage' as given in section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
and we shall presently refer to and deal with the definition in detail.
Clause (h) of section 3 of the Act defines .'contract carriage operator'.
Under clause (m) of section 3 of the Act, 'permit' means the permit
granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, authorising the use of a vehi- G · ·
cle as a contraci carriage. Section 4 is the vesting provision of contract
carriages etc. Section 6 provides for the determination of the amount
for the vesting of the acquired property under section 4 of the Act.
Section 14 bars the issuance of a fresh permit or renewal of the exist-
ing permit for the running of any contract carriage. Sub-section (1) of
section 20 provides inter alia that all contract carriage permits granted H

'
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
I
or renewed in respect of any vehicle, other than a vehicle acquired
A
under the Act or belonging to the Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation or referred io in section 24 of the Act, shall stand cancel-
led. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 provides that "no officer or authority
shall invite any application or entertain any such application of persons
other than the Corporation for the grant of permit for the running of
B any contract carriage".

It has been already noticed that the Act provides for acquisition
of contract carriages. The words 'contract carriage' have been defined
, in section 3(g) of the Act as follows:

"3(g). 'contract carriage' shall have the same meaning as
c .. in clause(3) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act and
.. includes- ·

(i) a public service vehicle in relation to which a
special permit has been issued under sub-section (6) of sec-
D tion 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act;

(ii) a public service vehicle in relation to which a
temporary permit has been issued under sub-section (1) of
section 62 or sub-section ( lC) of section 68F of the Motor
Vehicles Act;
E
(iii) a public service vehicle without a contract car-
riage permit but which is specified as contract carriage in
the concerned certificate of registration;

(iv) any right in or over such vehicles or moveable
F. property; but does not include,

-(i) a tourist vehicle in relation to which a permit has
been issued under sub-section (7) of section 63 of. the
Motor Vehicles Act;

G (ii) a vehicle opera.ting as a stage carriage in relation
to which on the 30th day of January,· 1976 a temporary
contract carriage permit or a special permit issued under
sub-section ( 1) of section 62 or sub-section (6) of section 63
respectively of the Motor Vehicles Act, is in force;

H {iii) a motor cab;"

'
SECY., REGIONAL TPT. AUTHORITY v. D.P. SHARMA [DUTT, J.J 1045
\

Under section 3(g), the 'contract carriage' shall, in the first
place, have the same meaning as in section 2(3) of the Motor Vehicles A "·
Act, which provides as follows:

"2(3). 'contract carriage' means a motor vehicle which car-
ries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a
contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a B
whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum-

(i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any
route or distance, or

(ii) from one point to another, and in either case without
stopping to pick up, c
or set down along. the line of route passengers not
included in the contract, and includes a motor cab notwith-
standing that the passengers may pay separate fares;"
D
In the secondlplace, section 3(g) gives an extended meaning to
'contract carriage'. Under the extended meaning, 'contract carriage'
will include a public service vehicle in relation to which a special
permit has been issued under section ( 6) of section 63 of the Motor
Vehicles Act or in relation to which a temporary permit has been
issued under sub-section (I) of section 62 or sub-section (IC) of sec- E
tion 68F of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also includes a public service
vehicle without a contract carriage permit but which is specified as
contract carriage in the concerned certificate of registration. We are
not referring to clauses (iv) and (v) of the extended definition, as the
same are not relevant for our purpose.
F
' ' A 'public service vehicle' has been defined in section 2(25) of the
Motor Vehicles Act as meaning any motor vehicle used or adapted to
be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes
a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Thus, it is apparent
from the ·definition of 'public service vehicle' that it includes a contract
carriage and a stage carriage as well. Under clauses (i) and (ii) of G
section 3(g) of the Act if a special permit under section 63(6) or a
temporary permit under section 62(1) or sub-section (IC) ofsection
68F of the Motor Vehicles Act has been issued, it will come within the
purview of the definition of 'contract carriage'. In other words, if a
'contract carriage' or a 'stage carriage' within the meaning of the
')
Motor Vehicles Act has been issued a special permit or a temporary H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
{

permit, as.referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 3(g), such 'con-
A
tract carriage' or 'stage carriage' will be a 'contract carriage' within the
meaning of section 3(g) of the Act.

Now we may refer to the latter part of the definition of 'contract
carriage' under section 3(g) of the Act which excludes certain vehicles
B from the definition of 'contract carriage'. The exclusion that has been
provided in clause (ii) is important for our purpose. It excludes a stage
carriage in respect of which a temporary contract carriage permit
under section 62( l) or a special permit under section 63( 6) of the
Motor Vehicles Act is in force on January 30, 1976, that is, the date on
which the Act is deemed to have come into force.· Under clauses (i)
and (ii) of section 3(g) of the Act, which form a part of the extended
C, definition of 'contract carriage', a public service vehicle, that is to say,
a contract carriage or a stage carriage in .respect of which a special
permit under section 63(6) or a temporary permit under section 62(1)
or section 68F( lC) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been issued, will
come within the meaning of 'contract carriage' under the Act. On the
D other harid, if a special permit under section 62(1) or under section
63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act was in force on January 30, 1976 in
respect of a stage carriage, such a stage carriage will not be a 'contract
carriage' within the meaning of section 3(g) of the Act.
'·
The High Court seems to think that if any special permit had not
E been granted to a.public service vehicle when the Act came into force,
such a vehicle .will· not .come within the meaning of the definition of
'contract carriage' under section; 3(g). This view of the High Court is
not correct. In clauses (i) and (ii) of section 3(g), the expression 'has
been issued' occurs. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General
of Karnataka that in view of the expression 'has .been issued', clauses
F (i) and (ii) contemplate the issuance of a special permit or a temporary
I •
permit after the coming into force of the Act. It does not include the
issuance of a special permit or a temporary permit earlier than the date
of the commencement of the Act. The learned Advocate General has
placed reliance on an English decision in re Athlumney Ex parte
Wilson, [1898] 2 QB 547. In that case, the words 'where a date has
G been proved under the principal Act' came to be construed and it was
observed "But this fotm of words is often used to refer, not to a past
time which preceded the enactment, but to a time which is made past
by anticipation a time which will have become a past time only when
the event occurs on which the statute is to operate." In our opinion,
whether the expression 'has been' occurring in a provision of a statute
('
H denotes transaction prior to the enactment of the statute in question or
SECY., REGIONAL TPT. AUTHORITY v. D.P. Sl'!ARMA (DUTT, J.J' 1047

a transaction after the coming into force· of the statute will depend A
upon the intention of the Legislature to be gathered from the provision·
in which the said expression occurs or from the other provisions of the
statute.

In the instant case, the words 'has been' contemplate the
issuance of a special permit or a temporary permit as referred to in B
clauses (i) and (ii) of section 3(g) of the Act after the enactment of the
Act which is clear from the exclusion clause (ii) of section 3(g) which
excludes a stage carriage from the definition of 'contract carriage', if
special permits issued under section 62(1) or section 63(6) of the
Motor Vehicles Act were in force on January 30, 1976. It is difficult to
interpret clauses (i) and (ii) of section 3(g) as contemplating the is- c
suance of a temporary permit or a-special permit, as referred to therein
before the coming into force of the Act. Merely because of the use of
the words 'has been' in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 3(g), such an
interpretation is not possible to be made, particularly in view of the
legislative intent apparent from the exclusion clause (ii), namely, that
the Legislature only excluded a stage carriage in respect of which a D
temporary contract carriage or a special permit issued under section
62(1) or 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Ad was in force on January 30,
1976.

It has, however, been urged by Mr. A.K. Sen, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, that a stage carriage E
vehicle in respect of which a special permit has been granted, .is
excluded from the operation of the Act. Counsel submits that the Act
only contemplates the acquisition of a contract carriage within the
meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act and not a stage carriage in respect
of which a special permit was or has been granted. In support of his
contention, the learned Counsel has placed strong reliance on the F
definition of the word 'permit' under section 3(m) of the Act, as mean-
ing the permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, authorising the
use of a vehicle as a contract carriage. It is submitted by him that the
word 'permit' means the permit granted for the use of a vehicle as a
contract carriage under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is urged by the
learned Counsel that the word 'permit' used in the different provisions G
of the Act will have the same meaning of the word as defined in section
3( m), that is to say, the permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act
for the use of a vehicle as a contract carriage.

In section 3(h) 'contract carriage operator' has been defined as
-)
follows: H
!

1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
'.
"3(h). 'contract carriage operator' means an operator ·
A
holding one cir more contract carriage permit and includes
any person in whose name a public service vehicle is
registered and is specified as a contract carriage in the
certificate or registration of such vehicle;"

B According to the learned Counsel, the word 'permit' in section
3(h) refers only to permit granted in respect of a contract carriage
under the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 4 is the vesting provision of
contract carriages. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 provides /
as follows:

"4. Vesting of contract carriages, etc.-(1) On and from
c such date as may be specified by the State Government in
this behalf by notification in respect of any contract car-
riage operator,

(a) every contract carriage owned or operated by such con-
D tract carriage operator along with the permit or the certifi-
cate of registration or both as the case may be shall vest in
the State Government absolutely free from all encum-
brances;"

Counsel sub.mi ts that the word 'permit' in clause (a) refers to a permit
E .granted to a vehicle for the use of a contract carriage under the Motor
. Vehicles Act. In other words, the sum and substance of the argument
of Mr. Sen is that the word 'permit' in section 3(m) relates to the
permit granted to a vehicle for the use as a contract carriage under the
Motor VehiclesAct and the definition with this interpretation should
be applied to the word 'permit' occurring in the different provisions of
F the Act including section 3(h) and.should also be applied to the word
occuring in section· 14 of the Act. Section 14 provides as follows:

"14. Fresh permit or renewal of the existing permit
barred.-Except otherwise provided in this Act

G ( 1) no person shall on or after the commencement of
this Act apply for any permit or fresh permit or for renewal
of an existing permit for the running of any contract car-
riage in the State; and

(2) every application for the grant of a permit or
H fresh permit or for the renewal of the existing permit and <-
,.,.

SECY., REGIONAL TPT. AUTHORITY v. D.P. SHARMA [DUTT, {J 1049

all appeals or revisions arising therefrom relating thereto
A
made or preferred before the commencement of this Act
and pending in any court or with any officer, authority or
Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act shall
abate."

It is submitted that only the grant or renewal of a permit in B
respect of a 'contract carriage' within the meaning of the Motor Vehi-
cles Act is prohibited under section 14 of the Act, and such prohibition
does not relate to a stage carriage for the running of the same as a
contract carriage.

We are unable to accept the contention. If the interpretation as
given by Mr. Sen of the definition of the word 'permit', under section
c
3(m) of the Act is accepted, it will make the definition of the words
'contract carriage' under section 3(g) of the Act meaningless. and
nugatory and also set at naught the object of the Act and the clear
intention of the Legislature to acquire a stage carriage as well in '
respect of which a special permit or a temporary permit, as referred to D
in clauses (i) or (ii) of section 3(g), has been granted. The words
) 'contract carriage' occurring in section 3(m) must, in our opinion, be
read in the light of the definition as contained in section 3(g) of the
Act. So read, it is manifest that section 14 read with section 20(3) of
the Act clearly bars the making of any application for a permit or fresh
permit or for renewal of an existing permit for the running of a vehicle, E
whether a contract carriage or a stage carriage, as a contract carriage.

It is not disputed before us that the Act does not contemplate the
vesting of stage carriages simpliciter. But section 14 read with section
20(3) of the Act clearly prohibits the grant or renewal of any permit for
the running of any contract carriage. A stage carriage in respect of F
which a temporary contract carriage permit or a special permit under
section 62( 1) or section 63( 6) respectively of the Motor Vehicles Act
was in force on January 30, 1976, has been excluded from the defini-
tion of a 'contract carriage' and, consequently, from the operation of
the Act by virtue of the extFnsion clause (ii) under section 3(g) of the
Act. But in view of section 14 read with section 20(3) of the Act, after G
such a temporary contract carriage permit or a special permit ceases to
be in force, such permit shall not be renewed or a fresh permit shall not
be granted for the running of the stage carriage as a contract carriage.
The owner of the vehicle can, however, run it as a stage carriage after
obtaining a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. But whether a spe-
cial permit was granted in respect of a stage carriage or not, no such H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A permit can be granted in respect of a stage carriage for the running of it
as a contract carriage. Jn other words, section 14 read with section 20(3 l
of the Act confers a monopoly on the Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation to run vehicles as contract carriages.

The High Court is not, therefore, right in its view that a public
B
service vehicle in relation to which a special permit had not been
issued when the Act came into force, would not come within the de-
finition of 'contract carriage' in section 3(g) and the prohibition con-
tained in section 20 of the Act against the grant of contract carriage /
permit cannot extend to grant of special permit under section 63(6) of
the Motor Vehicles Act.
c
Eut !Jefore we conclude, we may observe that but for the object
of the Act as stated above, it would have been very difficult for us to
interpret the provisions of the Act in view of bad drafting of the same.

Be that as it may, for the reasons aforesaid, these appeals are
D allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The writ
petition filed by the respondent No. 1 in the High Court is dismissed.
There will, however, be no order as to costs.

N.V.K. Appeals allowed.

I