Case: Sher Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

the legislature to provide that an application for renewal of a permit shall be made and disposed of as if it were an application for a fresh permit. The expression as if is used to make one applicable in respect of other. Therefore, the expression as if used in Sec. 58 (2) would mean and imply that the application for renewal must be made in the same manner and to same extent an application for a fresh permi t and must be processed as such. This would mean that even where an existing permit holder applies for a renewal of his permit, it has to be advertised and fresh applicants can as well apply for a permit to ply vehicles on the same route for which the previous holder of permit has applied for renewal of his permit. After considering all such applications, other conditions being equal, an existing operator who has applied for renewal will have preference. Therefore, by necessary interpretation, Sec. 47 (1-H) would also come into play when an application is for renewal of a permit on an inter-State route. There is no conflict between Sec. 47 (1-H) and Sec. 58 (2). It is therefore, not possible to accept the submission that while considering the application for renewal of a permit, Sec. 47 (1-H) is not attracted.9. It appears that the State of Rajasthan had amended Sec. 58 (2) in its application to that State by engrafting a third proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 58 by Rajasthan Act 8 of 1973, which reads as under:"Provided also that other conditions being equal, an application for stage carriage permit by a State Transport Undertakings, as defined in Section 68-A, whether an application for renewal or a new application shall be given preference over all other applications for renewal."Addition of this proviso merely makes explicit what was implicit in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 58. Nothing was pointed out to us to ho ld that the Rajasthan State Legislature lacked competence to add the aforementioned proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 58.Re: S.L.Ps. Nos. 9678 to 9680/82:10. In this group of petitions for special leave, it was contended before the High Court that as Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., the first respondent, did not make provision for night halt cleaners, the application for permits made by them were liable to be screened. The High Court declined to examine this contention on t he short ground that this contention was not raised before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. For the same reason, we could as well have declined to examine this contention. However, it may as well be pointed out that even if the contention is to be examined on merits, there is no substance in it. The State of Tamil Nadu has framed what are styled as Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. Rule 155-A provides for a marking system under different heads to rival claimants for permit to objectively assess who amongst them is the best to whom permit should be granted. Before proceeding to assign marks under different heads, the Transport Authority has to screen applications so as to weed out those unsuitable on one or the other ground mentioned in the rule. One such disqualification is the failure to provide for night halt cleaners. It was urged that after the Transport Authority made the enquiry from the first respondent-Corporation whether it has provision for night halt cleaners, without waiting for the clarification, the Transport Authority proceeded to dispose of the application. It was next pointed out that Rule 155-A (3) (d) provides that 5 marks shall be awarded to the applicant falling within the proviso to cl. (c) of Sec. 62 of the Act which means and implies a State Transport Undertaking. The grievance is that such adhoc assignment of marks and failure to weed out the application on the ground of disqualification for not providing night halt cleaners has vitiated the decision of the Transport Authority. The validity of Rule 155-A and its various sub clauses came up for consideration of this Court in D.R. Venkachalam &Ors. vs. Dy. Transport Commissioner &Ors.(1) This Court repelled the challenge especially to the provision for assigning 5 marks to a State Transport Undertaking observing as under:"A State enterprise, in a truly Welfare State, is charged with a social consciousness and responsibility for its citizens, an attention to serve them and a willingness to embark on public utility undertakings better to fulfil peoples demands. The public sector enterprises are expected to be model employers and mod el servants planning their budgets, subjecting themselves to public audit and criticism and inquest by legislative committees and the Houses of the legislature. Profits are their concern but, more importantly, public weal is their commitment. Such is the philosophy of the State sector in our socialistic pattern of society."11. On the question of assignment of 5 marks to State Transport Undertaking this Court held that this is not an arbitrary stroke of favouritism because there are many promotional factors bearing on the interest of the travelling public which a State enterprise qua State enterprise will, but a private enterprise qua private enterprise will not, take care of. After al l, private enterprise has its primary motivation in profit. The Court further observed that the superiority in many respects of State Transport Undertakings, in the legislative judgment, has led to r. 155-A. The Court ultimately held that the assignment of marks under r. 155-A is geared to public interest, which is the desideratum of s. 47 (1) of the Act. Once the assignment of 5 marks to State Transport Authority Undertaking is held to be valid, the Transport Authority was perfectly justified in refusing renewal of permits to the petitioners in comparison to the State Transport Undertaking. As for failure to explain absence of night halt cleaners, in the absence of concerte evidence, no inference can be drawn. This was the only additional contention in this group of petitions and we find no substance in it. Thes

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

Explanation:
0[ds]In this group of petitions for special leave, it was contended before the High Court that as Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., the first respondent, did not make provision for night halt cleaners, the application for permits made by them were liable to be screened. The High Court declined to examine this contention on t he short ground that this contention was not raised before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. For the same reason, we could as well have declined to examine this contention. However, it may as well be pointed out that even if the contention is to be examined on merits, there is no substance in it. The State of Tamil Nadu has framed what are styled as Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. Rule 155-A provides for a marking system under different heads to rival claimants for permit to objectively assess who amongst them is the best to whom permit should be granted. Before proceeding to assign marks under different heads, the Transport Authority has to screen applications so as to weed out those unsuitable on one or the other ground mentioned in the rule. One such disqualification is the failure to provide for night halt cleaners. It was urged that after the Transport Authority made the enquiry from the first respondent-Corporation whether it has provision for night halt cleaners, without waiting for the clarification, the Transport Authority proceeded to dispose of the application. It was next pointed out that Rule 155-A (3) (d) provides that 5 marks shall be awarded to the applicant falling within the proviso to cl. (c) of Sec. 62 of the Act which means and implies a State Transport Undertaking. The grievance is that such adhoc assignment of marks and failure to weed out the application on the ground of disqualification for not providing night halt cleaners has vitiated the decision of the Transport Authority. The validity of Rule 155-A and its various sub clauses came up for consideration of this Court in D.R. Venkachalam &Ors. vs. Dy. Transport Commissioner &Ors.(1) This Court repelled the challenge especially to the provision for assigning 5 marks to a State Transport Undertaking observing asState enterprise, in a truly Welfare State, is charged with a social consciousness and responsibility for its citizens, an attention to serve them and a willingness to embark on public utility undertakings better to fulfil peoples demands. The public sector enterprises are expected to be model employers and mod el servants planning their budgets, subjecting themselves to public audit and criticism and inquest by legislative committees and the Houses of the legislature. Profits are their concern but, more importantly, public weal is their commitment. Such is the philosophy of the State sector in our socialistic pattern ofthe question of assignment of 5 marks to State Transport Undertaking this Court held that this is not an arbitrary stroke of favouritism because there are many promotional factors bearing on the interest of the travelling public which a State enterprise qua State enterprise will, but a private enterprise qua private enterprise will not, take care of. After al l, private enterprise has its primary motivation in profit. The Court further observed that the superiority in many respects of State Transport Undertakings, in the legislative judgment, has led to r. 155-A. The Court ultimately held that the assignment of marks under r. 155-A is geared to public interest, which is the desideratum of s. 47 (1) of the Act. Once the assignment of 5 marks to State Transport Authority Undertaking is held to be valid, the Transport Authority was perfectly justified in refusing renewal of permits to the petitioners in comparison to the State Transport Undertaking. As for failure to explain absence of night halt cleaners, in the absence of concerte evidence, no inference can be drawn. This was the only additional contention in this group of petitions and we find no substance in it. These are all the contentions in this group of petitions and as we find no substance in any of them, all the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.