Case: Shrinivasa Reddy And Others Vs. The State Of Mysore And Others

Suffice it to say that the petitioners who are the same as the petitioners in Petition No. 75 (See A.I.R. 1960 SC 321)   were transport operators in the Anekal pocket in the State of Mysore. They held stage carriage permits for various routes which were expiring on 31-3-1958. They were granted renewal of these permits up to March 31,In the meantime, steps were taken to formulate an approved scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. No. IV of 1939, (hereinafter called the Act). The scheme was finally approved and published on April 23,In order, however, to avoid inconvenience to the public temporary permits were granted, to the petitioners after March 31, 1959, for a period of four months or up to the time the Mysore Government Road Transport Department (hereinafter called the Department) was granted permits under S. 68F, whichever was earlier. Sometime before June 23, 1959, the Department applied for permits in accordance with the scheme while the petitioners had applied for renewal of their permits. The Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter called the Authority) issued permits to the Department and rejected the renewal applications of the petitioners on June 23,The petitioners then applied to the High Court of Mysore by a writ petition challeging the issue of permits to the Department and the refusal of renewal to them. This petition was disposed of by the High Court on July 14, 1959, and it was held that the grant of permits to the Department was invalid and the rejection of the renewal applications of the petitioners was incorrect; but the High Court dismissed this petition on the ground that the relief to which the petitioners were entitled, in view of these findings, would be short-lived. The petitioners then applied for a certificate to enable them to appeal to this Court and that application is still pending. The present petition was filed on August 3, 1959.

Reasoning:
S. 68F lays down that where in pursuance of an approved scheme an State Transport Undertaking applies in the manner specified in Chapter IV for a stage carriage permit etc., in respect of a notified area or a notified route, the Regional Transport Authority shall issue such permit to the Undertaking notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV. Clearly therefore the Undertaking has to apply for permits in the manner provided in Chapter IV, even though the Regional Transport Authority may be bound on such application to issue the permits. This takes us to S. 45, which lays down to which authority the application shall be made and then to S. 46 which lays down the particulars which the application must contain. Thus the Undertaking must comply with the terms of Ss. 45 and 46 when it applies for permits.Then comes S. 57 (2) which lays down that an application for a stage carriage permit (with which we are concerned in this case) shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect or if the Regional Transport Authority appoints dates for the receipt of such applications, on such dates. In this case the Regional Transport Authority had appointed no date and clearly therefore the Undertaking should have applied not less than six weeks before the date on which it desired to start the service. This is necessary to give time to the Regional Transport Authority to deal with the matter and if necessary to inform those who might be affected under S. 68F (2) to be prepared for the change. That is why S. 68F (1) provided that the applications shall be made in the manner provided in Chapter IV. This provision has nothing to do with the publication required under S. 57 (3) which is meant for a different purpose.It was urged by the learned Solicitor General that the procedure provided in S. 57 (3) also applies as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter IV-A (see s. 68B).We consider it unnecessary to go into this matter for it is not disputed that the applications for permits in this case were not made at least six weeks before the date from which the permits were to take effect. In the circumstances the applications being not in the manner provided in Chapter IV and being actually in breach of S. 57 (2), no permits could be issued on such applications. Therefore, the orders in favour of the Department issuing permits to it are liable to be quashed on this groundthe scheme to be framed must be such as is capable of being carried out all at once and that is why the Undertaking has been given the power to frame a scheme for an area or route or even a portion thereof. Further after the scheme is framed it is approved and published by the State Government. Thereafter it is the duty of the Undertaking to carry out the scheme and in pursuance of that it applies for permits under S. 68F (1). If the Undertaking at that stage has the power to carry it out piecemeal, it would be possible for it to abuse the power of implementation and to discriminate against some operators and in favour of others included in the scheme and also to break up the integrity of the scheme and in a sense modify it against the terms of S. 68E. There is no difficulty for the Undertaking to apply for permits relating to the entire scheme at the same time, for the manner in which the schemes is prepared under S. 68C takes into account all the difficulties which might arise in the implementation of the scheme and with that very object provides for taking over particular types of transport services in relation to areas or routes or even portions thereof. We need not however pursue the matter further on thiseffect, therefore, the judgment of the High Court was in favour of the petitioners and not against them, though in form the writ petition was dismissed.In these circumstances we are of opinion that as the petitioners fundamental right to carry on business is certainly involved in this case we should not refuse relief to the petitioners on the ground that their writ petition was dismissed by the High Court and they have not yet been able to obtain a certificate permitting them to appeal to thiscase however is distinguishable because the contract there would have come to an end within a few days.In the present case there is no reason to assume that the six weeks period which is the minimum period prescribed under S. 57 (2) is the only period that will be required for implementation of the scheme under S. 68F (1). In these circumstances we are of opinion that the prayer of quashing the permits granted to the Department on June 23, 1959, should be allowed. As for the other prayer for quashing the order rejecting the renewal applications of the petitioners, it is now unnecessary in view of our decision in Petitions Nos. 54 and 75 of 1959.(See A.I.R. 1960 SC 321  .)