1. Dispute over renewal of a permanent stage carriage permit following the commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, requiring fresh applications for permits expired under the 1939 Act. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 396
1997(3) Supreme 408
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Prakash Chandra Sahu -Appellant
versus
State Transport Authority & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1828 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1653 of 1997)
Decided on 3-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A.K. Panda, Advocate.
For the Respondents : A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate, K.N. Tripathy, D. Mohanty, J.R. Das, and P.N. Misra, Advocates.
Important Points
Permits renewed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are treated as temporary permits under Section 87. To obtain a permanent permit, applicants must apply afresh under the 1988 Act, and the State Transport Authority must dispose of such applications in accordance with the law.
Subject
Administrative Law - Renewal of Permits
Act Referred
Headnote
MOTOR VEHICLES-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Appellant had a permanent stage carriage permit operating on inter-state route granted under Act 4 of 1939-Permit expired after 1988 Act came into force-Application for renewal of permit-Dispute whether appellant is entitled to renewal of permit-If any permit was renewed under provisions of 1988 Act-Renewal was to be treated to be a temporary permit u/s 87-Before expiry thereof, parties were directed to make an application afresh under 1988 Act and seek permit thereunder in accordance with law-Gajraj Singh s case, (1997) 1 SCC 650 : Relied on.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends that renewals under the 1988 Act are treated as temporary permits under Section 87, entitling the applicant to apply afresh for a permanent permit. (Para 4 )
3. The court observes that applications for permits must be made and disposed of by the State Transport Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Para 4 )
4. Permits renewed under the 1988 Act are treated as temporary permits under Section 87, requiring parties to apply afresh for permanent permits before the temporary permit expires. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed with observations that any application made in accordance with law should be disposed of by the State Transport Authority under the 1988 Act. (Para 5 )
6. How are permits renewed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, treated in relation to permanent permits?
Renewals under the 1988 Act are treated as temporary permits under Section 87 of the Act. Parties are required to make a fresh application for a permit under the 1988 Act before the temporary permit expires. (Para 4 )
7. What is the procedure for obtaining a permit when a permit granted under the 1939 Act expires after the 1988 Act comes into force?
The applicant must apply afresh under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the application must be considered and disposed of by the State Transport Authority in accordance with the law. (Para 3 , 4 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated August 9, 1996, made by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in OJC No. 3073/95.
3. The admitted position is that at one point of time the appellant had a permanent stage carriage permit operating on the inter-State route, viz., Peralakhemundi to Brahampur via Chatrapur and Garabandha. After the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force, the appellant filed an application for renewal of the permit and the dispute arose whether he is entitled to renewal of the permit. Since, admittedly, the permit granted under Act 4 of 1939 expired after the 1988 Act came into force, he was to apply afresh under the 1988 Act. Earlier when he had filed a Writ Petition, OJC No. 3421/93, the High Court had directed reconsideration of the application for renewal and also the application of the contesting respondents, after decision was taken on the application of the petitioner therein. Admittedly, the State Transport Authority had considered their applications and rejected the application for renewal and granted fresh permit to the third respondent. On a clarification sought by the contesting respondent, the High Court had pointed out that the judgment was not intended to have the permit granted to the contesting respondent cancelled; nonetheless the application of the appellant would be considered as and when need arose.
4. Shri A.K. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in view of the decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh & Ors. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal1, in particular paragraph 62, the appellant is entitled to apply afresh and to be considered by the authorities in accordance with law. He has stated that he had filed an application for renewal on 4.11.1996 for grant of permanent licence. In view of the above decision of this Court, if any permit was renewed under the provisions of the 1988 Act, the renewal was to be treated to be a temporary permit under Section 87 of that Act and that before expiry thereof, parties were directed to make an application afresh under the 1988 Act and seek permit thereunder in accordance with law. The direction issued by the High Court is not inconsistent with the above judgment of this Court. Under those circumstances, if the appellant has any right for grant of permit, the same has to be in accordance with law. Necessary application which comes to be made in accordance with law should be disposed of by the S.T.A. as per the provisions of the 1988 Act.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. No costs.
Appeal accordingly dismissed.
********
