Praveen Ansari & Ors Vs. State
Transport Tribunal, Lucknow & Ors [1980] INSC 203 (29 October 1980)
DESAI, D.A.
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 the vacancies, the authority must grant permit to the Corporation
to the 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 the 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 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 the 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]
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
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 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 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.
Back
