Case: Anna Transport Corporation Ltd Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Dharmapuri &amp; Ors

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 commoncontroversy 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 theBus 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 prescribed by law. Its application was notified on June 5, 1974, under section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 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 Trans port 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 impugnedfacts are, therefore , quite simple. There is no controversy about them, and they are sufficient for the disposal of the present appeals by special leave.

Reasoning:
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 thathas 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 Courts judgment in Cherans 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.