Cheran Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanan
Lorry Service & ANR [1976] INSC 323 (10 December 1976)
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
CITATION: 1977 AIR 1564 1977 SCR (2) 389 1977
SCC (1) 604
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1980 SC2044 (7) R 1992 SC 180 (4)
ACT:
Motor Vehicle Act -Secs. 58,68--C 68D(3),
68F(1D)--Stage carriage operator--Permit--Renewal--Renewal application made
within time-Whether can be defeated by Publication Scheme.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent was Stage Carriage Operator
whose two permits were to expire in January and March 1976. In the usual course
and in compliance with section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, he applied
for renewal more than 120 days ahead but at the time of the actual date of
expiry of the permits a draft scheme under part IV-A had been published. The
State withdrew the draft scheme under part IV-A for some technical reasons and
republished in July 1975, after the appellants' permits had expired. Section
68F(1D) provides that no permit shall be granted or renewal during the period
intervening between the date of publication under s. 68C of any scheme and the
date of publication of the approved or modified scheme. The proviso to the said
section provides that if a permit expires after the publication of the scheme
such permit may be renewed for a limited period but the renewed permit shall
cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under s. 68D(3).
Applying the prohibition contained in s. 68F(1D) the Regional Transport
Authority rejected the prayer for renewal. The High Court set aside that order
directed the grant of the renewal.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD: 1. At the time the respondents' permit
expired a draft scheme had already been published but the approved scheme had
not been, published. Any permit holder whose permit expires during this spell
is eligible for a renewal as specified in the proviso. The fact that the draft
scheme was later withdrawn cannot affect the rights to a renewal.
Renewal of the permit however would be to the
extent contemplated by section 68F(1D). [390G-H]
2. (a) No permit or renewal except to the
extent expressly saved by section 68F(1D) can be granted by the Regional
Transport Authority during the period between the date of publication of any
scheme and the date of publication of the approved scheme. [391C] (b) If a
permit expires after the publication of any draft scheme such permit is
eligible for renewal for a limited period as set out in the proviso. The
special provision contained in that proviso cannot be stretched on the ground
of possible anomalies or unjust consequences to cover permits expiring even
before the publication of the draft scheme. Where language is plain the interpretation
cannot take the shape of addition or interstitial legislation.
[391C-D]
3. If a permit holder whose permit is about
to expire diligently does in the normal course, all that he needs and all that
he can, that is to say, if he sets in motion the legal machinery for the grant
of renewal as laid down in section 58, the fact that a scheme is published
before the actual grant of renewal will not intercept or extinguish the process
of law set in motion by the application for renewal. If for reasons beyond the
control of the applicant the renewal process gets delayed or prolonged he.
cannot be penalised. Renewal is a legal process and not the final act. Save in
this category of cases all other permits which have expired before the draft
scheme is published, suffer the ban of s. 68F(1D). However, no permit can
ensure beyond the time of the publication of the approved scheme. [391DF] 390
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 13491350/76.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment
and Decree dated the 12th October 1976 of the Madras High Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 5881 and 5884 of 1975.
V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol, General of lndia,
(Mrs.) N. G, Krishna Iyengar, Shri Narain, K.J.' John, D.N. Mishra for the
Appellant.
F.S. Nariman, M. N. Rangachari, A.R.
Ramanathan, Jayaraman,M.M.L. Srivastava and A.T.M. Sarapath for Respondent No.
1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-KRISHNA
IYER, J. The short ,question, involving a point of construction of s. 68-F(1D),
has been raised by the Additional Solicitor General in these appeals by Special
Leave.
The respondent was a stage carriage operator
whose two permits ,were to expire in January and. March 1976. In the usual
course and in compliance with s. 58. of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short,
'The Act') he applied for renewal more than 120 days ahead but at the time of
the actual date of expiry of the permits a-draft scheme under part IV-A had
been published. This fulfilled the requirements of the proviso to s. 68-F(1D)
and entitled the appellant to renewal for the limited period stated in the said
proviso. But the State withdrew the draft scheme for some technical reasons and
republished it in July 1975, after the appellant's permit had expired. Applying
the prohibition contained in s. 68-F(1D) the Regional Transport Authority (for
short the 'R.T.A.') rejected the prayer for renewal.
However, the High Court set aside that order
and directed the grant of renewal, on a certain view of the section which the
Additional Solicitor General contends goes beyond the limits of the plain words
used. The aggrieved State appeals.
While we are satisfied that on the peculiar
facts. of this case the respondent can sustain the permits the legal position
canvassed by the appellant appears to be correct.
At the time the respondent's permit expired a
draft scheme had already been published but the approved scheme had not been
published. Any permit holder whose permit expires during this spell is eligible
for a renewal as specified in the proviso. The fact that the draft scheme was
later withdrawn cannot affect the right to a renewal.
We, therefore, hold that the renewal of
permit shall remain to the extent contemplated in the proviso to s. 68-F(1D).
Before we consider the legal question we may
read s. 68F(1D).
"(1D) Save as otherwise provided in subsection
(1A) or sub-section (1G), no permit shall be granted or renewed during the
period intervening between the date of publication, under Section 68-(2 of any
scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in
favour of 391 any person for any class or 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 68-C 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
68-D." Three propositions plainly emerge.
No permit or renewal, except to the extent
expressly saved by s. 68-F(ID), can be granted by the R.T.A. during the period
between the date of publication of any scheme and the date of publication of
the approved scheme. (2) If a permit expires after the publication of any draft
scheme such permit is eligible for renewal for a limited period as set out in
the proviso. This special provision cannot be stretched, on the ground of
possible anomalies or unjust consequences, to cover permits expiring even
before the publication of the draft scheme. Where the language is plain,
interpretation cannot take the shape of addition or interstitial legislation.
(3) A rider to proposition No. 2 has to be added. If a permit holder whose
permit is about to expire, diligently does, in the normal course, all that he
need and all that he can, that is to say, apply for renewal before 120 days, in
the manner laid down in s. 58 of the Act, he sets in motion the legal machinery
for the grant of renewal which must ordinarily culminate. in renewal within 120
days. The fact that a scheme is published before the actual grant of renewal
will not intercept or extinguish the process of law set in motion by the
application for renewal. In such cases the R.T.A. has to act promptly and if
the application for renewal is in conformity with the law it has to consider it
and grant or reject according to merit. If, for reasons beyond the control of
the applicant, the renewal process gets delayed or prolonged he cannot be
penalised. Renewal is a legal process, not the final act. Save in this category
of cases, all other permits which have expired before the draft scheme is
published, suffer the ban of s. 68-F(1D). However, no permit can ensure beyond
the time of the publication of the approved scheme. This saves cases of
bona-fide applications for renewal of permits, not calculated to thwart a
scheme, and helps the travelling public during the interregnum when the scheme
is under scrutiny. The wider proposition accepted by the High Court that all
permits which have expired before the draft scheme is published can be renewal
does not appear to be correct and does not have our approval.
With this declaration of the law we dismiss the
appeals.
No order as to costs.
P.H.P. Appeals dismissed.
Back
