Civil Appeal Nos
2780 2782 of 1977
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 8 1977 of the Madras High Court in CRP Nos
559 56177
K Parasaran Solicitor General of India and AV Rangam for the Appellant
TS Krishnamurthy Iyer section Srinivasan and ATM Sampath for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL 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 Transport 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 light 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 the disposal of the renewal applications of the revision petitioners
The facts 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
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
Balkrishna Bus Service and Company respondent No 2 was a private operator on the aforesaid route
Its permit was due to expire on October 9 1974 and it applied for its renewal within the time 71 prescribed by law
Its application was notified on June 5 1974 under section 573 of the  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 fixed 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 hearing of the matter which was pending before the Regional Transport Authority
A draft scheme for the route from Mettur to Kallakurchi via Omalur and Salem was published on June 4 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 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 that led to the passing of the impugned judgment
The facts are therefore quite simple
There is no controversy 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 rightly took the view that the controversy before it fell within the purview of sub section 1D thereof
It however held on a reading of this Court s decision in Cheran Transport Co Ltd vs Kanan Lorry Service  Anr1 that the case fell 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 1D of section 68F of the Act
The sub section reads as follows 1D Save as otherwise provided in sub section 1A or subsection 1C no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication under section 68C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme in favour of any person for any class 72 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 renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under sub section 3 of section 68D
It is not in controversy that sub section 1A or sub section 1C of section 68F are not applicable to the controversy
The rest of sub section 1D provides that no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication under 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 section 68C of the Act and as has been mentioned that scheme overlapped a section of the Salem Krishnagiri route
It follows therefore that by virtue of the clear provision of sub section 1D 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 1976 and the date of publication 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 1D and it consequently erred in taking into consideration the so called rider to proposition No 2 mentioned in this Court s judgment in Cheran s case supra
The proviso would have been applicable only if the period of operation of the permit of the respondents had expired after the publication of the scheme prepared under section 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 application for a long time by obtaining a stay order
On a plain reading of sub section 1D of section 68F of the Act we have 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 dismissed
The stay orders are vacated
NVK Appeals allowed


Summary:
Section 68F1D of the provides that no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication 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 or 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 573 of the 
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 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
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 1D of section 68 but held on a reading of the decision in Cheran Transport Co Ltd vs Kanan Lorry Service  Anr   that the case fell within the purview of the rider to proposition No 2 set out in that judgment with reference to the proviso to section 1D of section 68F of the Act and allowed the revision petitions
Allowing the appeals to this Court  HELD i By virtue of the clear provision of sub section 1D of section 68F of the Act no permit could be granted or renewed during the period 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 transport service
72E 70 ii The High Court clearly went wrong in thinking that the case fell within the purview of the proviso to sub section 1D 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 applicable 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 In the instant 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