Prakash
Chandra Sahu Vs. State Transport Authority & Ors [1997] INSC 238 (3 March
1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R Leave granted.
This
appeal by special leave arises from the order dated August 9,1996, made by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in OJC
No. 3073/95.
The
admitted position is that at one point of time the appellant had a permanent
stage carriage permit operating on the inter-State route, viz., Peralakhemundi
to Berhampur via chatrapur and Garabandha. After the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
came into force, the appellant filed an application for renewal of the permit
and the dispute arose whether he is entitled to renewal of the permit. Since,
admittedly, the permit granted under Act 4 of 1939 expired after the 1988 Act
came into force, he was to apply afresh under the 1988 Act . Earlier when he
had filed a Writ Petition, OJC No. 3421/93, the High Court had directed
reconsideration of the application for respondents, after decision was taken on
the application of the petitioner therein. Admittedly, the State Transport
Authority had considered their applications and rejected the application for
respondent. On a clarification sought by the contesting respondent, the High
Court had pointed out that the judgment was not intended to have the permit
granted to the contesting respondent cancelled;
nonetheless
the application of the appellant would be considered as and when need arose.
Shri
A.K. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the
decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh & Ors. v. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal [(1997) 1 SCC 650], in particular paragraph 62, the appellant is
entitled to apply afresh and to be considered by the authorities in accordance
with law. He has stated that he had filed an application for renewal on
4.11.1996 for grant of permanent licence. In view of the above decision of this
Court, if any permit was renewed under the provisions to be a temporary permit
under Section 87 of that Act and that before expiry thereof, parties were
directed to make an application afresh under the 1988 Act and seek permit thereunder
in accordance with law. The direction issued by the High Court is not
inconsistent with the above judgment of this Court. Under those circumstances,
if the appellant has any right for grant of permit, the same has to be in
accordance with law. Necessary application which comes to be made in accordance
with law should be disposed of by the S.T.A. as per the provisions of the 1988
Act.
The
appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2