SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
12th April, 1961
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Abdul Gafoor, Proprietor, Shaheen Motor Service, Channaryaptna, Petitioner
Versus
State of Mysore and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 109 of 1961 .
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General, M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar and K. P. Bhat, Advocates, for Petitioner; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Sr. Advocate, M/s. R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, Advocates, for Respondents. 1557
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 68-F (1) - PERMIT TO STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING - PUBLICATION OF APPLICATION AND NOTICE TO EXISTING PERMIT HOLDERS - NOT NECESSARY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private bus operator, challenged the grant of permits to the State Transport Undertaking (STU) under S. 68-F (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, without prior publication of the applications and notice to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of S. 57(3) of the Act, which require publication of applications for permits and notice to existing permit holders, do not apply to applications made by the STU under S. 68-F (1). The Court found that the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) has no discretion to refuse a permit to the STU if the application is made in pursuance of an approved scheme and in the manner specified in Chapter IV of the Act.
Issues: Whether the provisions of S. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, requiring publication of applications for permits and notice to existing permit holders, apply to applications made by the State Transport Undertaking under S. 68-F (1) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of S. 57(3) do not apply to applications made by the STU under S. 68-F (1) because the nature of the matter dealt with under S. 68-F (1) is such that it does not attract any of the provisions of S. 57(3). The Court found that the RTA has no discretion to refuse a permit to the STU if the application is made in pursuance of an approved scheme and in the manner specified in Chapter IV of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : The petitioner, who is the proprietor of the Shaheen Motor Service, used to ply a motor bus for hire on the route Archalli to Saravanabelgola in Hassan District in the State of Mysore. A scheme under S. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 having been published by the Mysore Transport Undertaking, the petitioner as one of the persons affected thereby filed objections to the scheme before the State Government under S. 68-D (1) of the Act. The State Government, however, after considering the objections and hearing the petitioner approved the scheme, subject to a slight modification with which we are not concerned. This approval was given on December 22, 1959. In pursuance of this approved scheme the State Transport Undertaking-the 2nd respondent before us - made applications for permits but before the Regional Transport Authority could issue such permits the present petition was filed praying, in the first place, for a writ of certiorari to quash the scheme and some consequential directions, and secondly for a writ of "prohibition" to the Regional Transport Authority, Hassan District, who is the third respondent before us "to refrain from dealing with the applications for permit made by the 2nd respondent unless and until they are duly published and notice thereof is given to the petitioner and he is allowed to make his representation thereon regarding their compliance or otherwise with the conditions of S. 68-F (1) of the Chapter IV-A. After learned counsel for the petitioner had been heard, this Court by its order dated March 21, 1961, granted leave to the petitioner to amend the writ petition so as to confine it to the second prayer only and directed a rule to issue only in respect of this second prayer.
2. The only question with which we are therefore now concerned is whether a writ should issue prohibiting, the Regional Transport Authority, Hassan District, from dealing with the applications for permits made by the State Transport Undertaking "unless and until they are duly published and notice thereof is given to the petitioner and he is allowed to make his representations thereon.".
3. The petitioner s case as regards this prayer is that under the law no permit can be granted to the State Transport Undertaking until the applications for permit have been duly published and notice has been given to the petitioner of those applications. In support of this proposition learned counsel advanced two arguments - firstly, that S. 57(3) in Chapter IV of the Act, requires such prior publication with notice of the date before which representations in connection with the application may be submitted and that in consequence of S. 68-B of Chapter IV-A the above provisions of S. 57(3) of Chapter IV have to be followed. The second argument is that the Regional Transport Authority acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when dealing with applications for permits made under S. 68-F and so the petitioner who will be affected by the issue of the permits is entitled to notice.
4. Section 68-B on which reliance has been placed provides inter alia that the provisions of Chapter IV-A shall have effect "notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV". It says nothing positive as regards any of the provisions of Chapter IV being applicable to matters under Chapter IV-A but provides negatively that if any question arises as regards any provisions of the Act in Chapter IV-A and there is difficulty in applying it on the ground that there is conflict between it and some provisions of Chapter IV, the provision of Chapter IV-A will prevail. Mr. Iyengar has argued that it is implicit in this provision that if there is no such difficulty all the provisions of Chapter IV will apply to matters dealt with under Chapter IV-A. This argument, in our opinion, is fallacious. All that S. 68-B pre-supposes is that there are some provisions in Chapter IV which may apply to matters under Chapter IV-A; on that assumption it pro
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.