IMPORTANT POINT
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 intends to increase buses on different routes for the convenience & benefit of travelling public. It will be unjust to put feter on the legislative policy u/s. 80(2) of the Act in favour of granting of permits to new transport operators on the objections of existing bus operators.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 80(2) -Appellants applying under for permits to operate mini buses on certain routes-Granted by State Transport Appellate Tibunal-Objected to by other existing mini bus owners-High Court set aside orders of Tribunal being violative of Articles 14 and 19-Whether correct? (No)-Case law discussed-Whether scheme of Section 99 applicable? (No)-Appeals allowed.
       Held : Despite the legislative intent under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to increase the number of buses on different routes for the convenience and benefit of travelling public, there is reluctance on the part of the authorities to implement the same. Having reached at a saturation point wherein Permit Raj caused lot of inconvenience to the bus operators as well as to the general public to a large extent, the same is sought to be continued. There cannot be any doubt that there can be certain restrictions on the bus operators for providing facilities to the passengers, but when Legislature provides that permit should not, ordinarily, be refused and has brought about a complete change in the policy of granting permit, it would be unreasonable and unjust on the part of the State Authorities to continue their old practice. Further, in these days of liberalization in all fields, that too when we are talking of globalization, it would be unjust to put fetter on the exercise of fundamental rights of those persons who intend to carry on the business as transport operators. (Para 2)
       (On scheme u/s. 99 of the Act)
       Held : Main purpose of the aforesaid section is to have some routes/area reserved for the State Transport Undertaking, that too, for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated Road Transport service. Further, such scheme must be in public interest, that is to say, larger number of buses operating on different routes for the convenience and benefit of travelling public at a cheaper rate. In such a scheme, some routes can be reserved exclusively or partially for the State Transport Undertakings. (Para 11)
       (Regarding notification dated 21.10.97 modifying scheme)
       Held : For the purpose of these appeals, clauses 2 and 4 are not at all relevant. Clause (2) provides for all Inter-state routes and clause (4) provides for future operators on monopoly routes which are to be operated by the State Undertakings. Relevant clause is clause (7-A) and it nowhere reveals that it is in conformity with Section 99 of the Act. Under Section 99 of the Act if the State Transport Undertaking is to operate on a particular route, then only the scheme could be made applicable. The aforesaid Scheme does not provide that the routes mentioned in Clause 7(a) are to be covered and operated completely or partially by the State Transport Undertaking. In such cases, Section 80(2) would be applicable as under Section 99, the State Government is not empowered to provide that only few private operators would operate on a particular route/routes and Regional Transport Authority or other prescribed authority cannot ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. It is to be stated that in the present case, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was not challenged by the State Government or by the State Transport Undertaking, but was only challenged by the private bus operators. However, in these, appeals, it is not necessary to consider whether they were having any locus standi to file petitions before the High Court. In the result, the appeals are allowed. Impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside. Orders passed by the Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab are restored. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 14, 15 & 16)

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Leave granted.

2. Despite the legislative intent under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to increase the number of buses on different routes for the convenience and benefit of travelling public, there is reluctance on the part of the authorities to implement the same. Having reached at a saturation point wherein Permit Raj caused lot of inconvenience to the bus operators as well as to the general public to a large extent, the same is sought to be continued. There cannot be any doubt that there can be certain restrictions on the bus operators for providing facilities to the passengers, but when Legislature provides that permit should not, ordinarily, be refused and has brought about a complete change in the policy of granting permit, it would be unreasonable and unjust on the part of the State Authorities to continue their old practice. Further, in these days of liberalization in all fields, that too when we are talking of globalization, it would be unjust to put fetter on the exercise of fundamental rights of those persons who intend to carry on the business as transport operators.

3. In these appeals, the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh setting aside the orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting permits to operate mini buses on certain routes to the appellants, is challenged. Orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were not challenged by the State Transport Undertaking or the State Government but were challenged by the Permit Holders who were running mini buses. It is true that those who are having permits to operate on certain routes would object to the grant of permit to other operators as it is likely to affect their monopoly. This is bound to be there in all fields of industry or business. At the same time, grant or refusal of such permits is required to be governed by the provisions of law.

4. The objects and reasons of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia provides that to take care of:-

(a) the fast increasing number of both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles in the country; and

(b) simplification of procedure and policy liberalizations for private sector operations in the road transport field;

the provisions are made under the Act.

5. This legislative policy is reflected in Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which inter alia provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act.

6. As early as 1974, this Court in case of Hans Raj Kehar v. State of U.P.1, emphasised the need of having more and more buses for the public convenience and observed thus: -

...The notification removes the barcreated by the limit on the number of permits for buses which could be issued and facilitates the issue of such permits to fresh applicants if they satisfy the requirement of eligibility. It hardly needs much argument to show that the larger number of buses operating on different routes would be for the convenience and benefit of the travelling public and as such would be in the public interest. Any measure which results in larger number of buses operating on various routes would necessarily eliminate or in any case minimise long hours of waiting at the bus stands. It would also relieve congestion and provide for quick and prompt transport service. Good transport service is one of the basic requirements of a progressive society. Prompt and quick transport service being a great boon for those who travel, any measure which provides for such an amenity is in the very nature of things in the public interest."

7. Further in Mithilesh Garg and Others v. Union of India and others2, the existing bus operators challenged the validity of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that they were adversely affected in exercise of their right under Articles 14 and 19 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2001 Supreme(SC) 1403

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis