Case: Praveen Ansari and Others Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow and Others

Section 68-F(1-C) appears to have been introduced to meet w ith 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 tempo rary 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 exe rcise 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.6. 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 t o be temporary permits because the scheme has been published in respect of the route under section 68C.7. 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 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.8. 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 t he 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.9. Reverting to t he 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 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 i s 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.10. Accordingly thi

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]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 aw are 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 w ith 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 tempo rary 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 exe rcise 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 isis 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 t o be temporary permits because the scheme has been published in respect of the route under sectionState 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 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 init 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 t he 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 ato t he 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 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 i s 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 tothis 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.