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 
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
681 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 UP 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 F1 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 F1 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 F1 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 F1 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 F1 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 F1 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 F1 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 F1 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 F1 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 F1 C clearly envisaged a situation where application for a temporary permit is not made under section 68 F1 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 F1 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 F1 C would be squarely attracted
In interpreting the provisions of Chapter IV A of 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 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 F1 A and Section 68 F1 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 F1 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
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
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 tho vacancies the authority must grant permit to the Corporation to tho exclusion of any other applicant as section 68 F1 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 tho 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 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 tho 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 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  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