1. Dispute over grant of stage carriage permits to a transport undertaking under a scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and refusal of permit renewals. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 196
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6th November, 1959.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S. JAFER IMAM, J.L. KAPUR, K.N. WANCHOO, AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Shrinivasa Reddy and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of Mysore and others, Respondents.
Petition No. 95 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Advocate with him), for Petitioners; Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India (M/s. R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, Advocates with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
The majority judgment (of B. P. Sinha, C. J., Syed Jafer Imam, K. N. Wanchoo and K. C. Das Gupta, JJ.) was delivered by
Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, H.N.SANYAL, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, T.M.SEN
B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, H.N.SANYAL, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, T.M.SEN
Applications for stage carriage permits by a State Transport Undertaking under Section 68F(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, must strictly comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter IV, including the mandatory six-week notice period prescribed under Section 57(2).
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 45, 46, 57(2), 68C, 68F - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 32 - Issue of stage carriage permits to State Transport Undertaking - Requirement of applying in the manner specified in Chapter IV - Compliance with the six-week notice period under Section 57(2) is mandatory even for applications made under Section 68F(1) - Failure to comply with the statutory time limit renders the issuance of permits invalid. (Para 4)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 68C - Preparation of scheme for road transport services - Implementation of an approved scheme - Potential for discrimination if implemented piecemeal - Duty of the Undertaking to frame a scheme capable of being carried out in full to avoid abuse of power and discrimination against certain operators. (Para 5)
(C) Interpretation of Statutes - Use of phrases like "or any portion thereof" in a schedule of routes - If the intention to take over the whole route is clear from other details, such as the specified length of the route, such phrases are surplusage and may be ignored. (Para 6)
(D) Writ Jurisdiction - Relief under Article 32 - Where the High Court finds a violation of law but refuses relief on the ground that it would be short-lived, the Supreme Court may grant relief if fundamental rights, such as the right to carry on business, are involved. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Transport operators held stage carriage permits which were expiring. A scheme was approved and published under the Motor Vehicles Act to nationalize certain routes. The State Transport Undertaking applied for permits under Section 68F, and the Regional Transport Authority issued them while rejecting the operators' renewal applications. The High Court found the issuance of permits invalid due to non-compliance with the statutory notice period and the rejection of renewals incorrect, but dismissed the petition on the ground that the relief would be short-lived.
Findings of Court:
The applications for permits by the State Transport Undertaking were not made at least six weeks before the effective date as required by Section 57(2). Since Section 68F(1) mandates that applications be made in the manner provided in Chapter IV, the failure to adhere to the time limit under Section 57(2) rendered the permits invalid.
Issues: Whether the State Transport Undertaking must comply with the six-week notice period under Section 57(2) when applying for permits under Section 68F(1), and whether the Supreme Court can grant relief when the High Court dismissed a petition despite finding the underlying action illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 68F(1) explicitly requires applications to be made "in the manner specified in Chapter IV." Section 57(2) is part of that prescribed manner, requiring a minimum six-week notice to allow the authority to deal with the matter and inform affected parties. Non-compliance with this procedural requirement invalidates the grant of permits. Furthermore, when fundamental rights are at stake, the court will not deny relief simply because a lower court deemed the relief "short-lived."
Result: Petition allowed and the order issuing permits to the Department quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a scheme must be implemented simultaneously for all routes and whether applications under Section 68F must comply with the notice period in Section 57(2). (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Applications for permits under Section 68F must be made in the manner specified in Chapter IV, including the six-week notice period required by Section 57(2). (Para 4 )
4. Permits issued to a transport undertaking under Section 68F are invalid if the application fails to comply with the mandatory notice period prescribed in Section 57(2). (Para 4 )
5. Petition allowed and order issuing permits to the transport department quashed. (Para 8 , 9 , 18 )
6. Does a State Transport Undertaking applying for permits under Section 68F need to comply with the notice period in Section 57(2)?
Yes. Section 68F requires applications to be made in the manner specified in Chapter IV. Therefore, the Undertaking must apply at least six weeks before the desired effective date as mandated by Section 57(2). (Para 4 )
7. Can a State Transport Undertaking implement an approved road transport scheme in stages or piecemeal?
The court observed that piecemeal implementation could lead to discrimination against some operators and break the integrity of the scheme, suggesting the Undertaking should frame schemes it can carry out in full. (Para 5 )
8. How should the phrase or any portion thereof be interpreted when used repeatedly in a transport scheme's route descriptions?
If the specified length of the route indicates an intention to take over the entire route, such phrases are considered surplusage and may be ignored. (Para 6 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J.: This petition under Art.32 of the Constitution is a sequel to Writ Petition No. 75 of 1959* which is also being disposed of today. It is not necessary therefore to set out the early history leading to this petition as that has already been given in the judgment in Petition No. 75*. Suffice it to say that the petitioners who are the same as the petitioners in Petition No. 75* 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, 1959. 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, 1959. 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, 1959. 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.
2. The first contention of the petitioners in this petition is that after the scheme had been approved and published under Chapter IV-A of the Act, it was the duty of the Department to apply under S. 68F for all the routes covered by the scheme and it was only, when the Department applied for all the routes, that it would be open to the Authority to reject the applications for renewal made by the petitioners. The Department in this case applied only for some of the routes and in particular it was pointed out that there was no application at any rate for one out of the fourteen routes included in the scheme. Therefore it is submitted that the Department by picking and choosing which route to apply for and which to leave out was discriminating against those operators for whose routes it applied for permits and in favour of those operators for whose routes it did not apply for permits. Further, the Authority by granting permits to the Department in such circumstances was denying equality before the law of the petitioners. This was an infringement of Art. 14 of the Constitution and also contravened the petitioner s right to carry on business guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (g). Secondly, the petitioners contended that the Authority could not issue permits in this case as S. 57 (2) and (3) was not complied with. The petitioners therefore prayed for a direction quashing the order of the Authority issuing permits to the Department under S. 68F and refusing their renewal applications.
3. The petition has been opposed by the Department and its contention is that even though an approved scheme might cover a number of routes, it was open to the Department to implement it in stages and that it was the best judge as to which route should be taken over first and ther
