1. Dispute over the grant of a regular stage carriage permit based on an application for renewal of a temporary permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 342
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
31st October, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
M/.s Gandhara Transport Co. Ltd. Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others. Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Bishan Narain, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Daya Swarup Nehra and Naunit Lal, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. K. L. Gosain, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 3.
Advocates:
BISHAN NARAIN, DAYAL SVARUP NEHRA, K.L.GOSAI, K.L.Mehta, NAUNIT LAL, S.K.MEHTA
BISHAN NARAIN, DAYAL SVARUP NEHRA, K.L.GOSAI, K.L.Mehta, NAUNIT LAL, S.K.MEHTA
A temporary permit cannot be renewed as a regular permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. Regular permits must be granted following the prescribed statutory procedure, including public notice and consideration of public interest factors, to ensure fair competition and legality.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 47, 57, 58, and 62 - Temporary Permits vs. Regular Permits - Renewal - Permits under Section 62 are intended to meet temporary needs and are granted without following the procedure laid down in Section 57 - The Act does not contemplate the renewal of temporary permits; only regular permits may be renewed under Section 58 - In granting a regular permit, the authority must follow the procedure under Section 57 and consider matters set out in Section 47, including public interest, advantage to the public, and adequacy of existing transport services (Paras 4, 5).
(B) Administrative Law - Procedure - Entertaining an application for the renewal of a temporary permit as a regular permit, and inviting objections in terms that mislead potential competitors, constitutes a grave error of procedure that vitiates the proceedings (Para 5).
Facts of the case:
A temporary permit was granted for a specific route. Upon the expiry of the temporary permit, the holder applied for its renewal. The transport authority invited objections to the renewal of the permit for a period of three years on a regular basis and subsequently granted a regular permit. This was challenged on the grounds that the Act contains no provision for renewing a temporary permit into a regular permit and that the authority failed to invite fresh applications from the public as required for regular permits.
Findings of Court:
The authority committed an error at the threshold by entertaining an application not contemplated by any provision of the Act. By inviting objections to the application as one for renewal on a regular basis, the authority misled parties who might have otherwise applied for the route and failed to apply its mind to the mandatory considerations required under Section 47 of the Act.
Issues: Whether a temporary permit can be renewed as a regular permit and whether the failure to follow the statutory procedure for granting regular permits renders the grant of such a permit unlawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that temporary permits and regular permits serve different purposes and are governed by different legal requirements. Since the statute only provides for the renewal of regular permits, treating a temporary permit application as a renewal for a regular permit is legally unsustainable. Such a process bypasses the mandatory competitive procedure and the judicial consideration of public interest required for regular permits.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether temporary permits are renewable as regular permits and whether failure to invite public applications for regular permits vitiates the grant. (Para 3 , 6 )
3. The Act provides no mechanism for renewing temporary permits; regular permits require adherence to Section 57 procedures and Section 47 considerations. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Temporary permits cannot be renewed into regular permits; granting a regular permit without following statutory procedures for new applications is unlawful. (Para 5 )
5. High Court order set aside and the grant of the regular permit declared unlawful. (Para 7 )
6. Can a temporary permit be renewed into a regular permit under the Motor Vehicles Act?
No. The Act does not contemplate the renewal of temporary permits. Only regular permits may be renewed under Section 58 of the Act. (Para 5 )
7. What procedure must be followed when granting a regular permit for a stage carriage?
The authority must follow the procedure laid down in Section 57 and consider factors under Section 47, such as public interest, adequacy of existing services, and road conditions. (Para 5 )
8. Does the expiration of a permit make a challenge to its legality academic?
Not necessarily. A declaration of law may be necessary to prevent future repetitions of the error and to ensure the holder does not unfairly benefit from a preference for renewal in future applications. (Para 6 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. : By order dated October 23, 1956 the Regional Transport Authority. Patiala granted a permit to one Manohar Singh for plying a stage carriage on the Bhatinda-Khera (via Bajekhanna)-Jaitu-Kot Kapura route which was about 55 miles long. This route covered 35 miles of the Bhatinda-Kot-Kapura-Faridkot route for which the appellants M/s. Gandhara Transport Co. Ltd., held permits for playing their vehicles. In appeal against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the appellants authority cancelled the permit in favour of Manohar Singh but the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside by the Minister in-charge of the Transport Department, Punjab State, in revision, and it was directed that a fresh temporary permit be granted to Manohar Singh for plying vehicles on the route for which he had been given a permit. The appellants then preferred a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab, challenging the validity of the order passed by the Minister. Before this writ petition could be heard the period of the temporary permit expired and Monohar Singh applied to the Regional Transport Authority for renewal of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority issued on April 16, 1958 a notice inviting objections "regarding the further renewal of the permits for a period of three years on regular basis" in favour of Manohar Singh on the Bhatinda - Khera (via Bajekhanna) - Jaitu-Kot Kapura. The appellants and others filed objections to the "renewal of the permits for three years on regular basis." The Regional Transport Authority posted the objections for hearing on July 30, 1958. In the meantime the appellants applied to the High Court of Punjab for an interim order directing the Regional Transport Authority to stay pronouncement of the order on the application submitted by Manohar Singh till the disposal of their petition in the High Court. By order dated July 29, 1958 the High Court rejected the application observing that it was open to the appellants to move the Regional Transport Authority to postpone announcement of its order on the application of Mohohar Singh. The Regional Transport Authority declined to postpone announcement of its orders and on August 1, 1958 directed that a regular permit for three years be granted to Monohar Singh for the route notified. On August 7, 1958 the writ petition of the appellants was heard by the High Court and it was dismissed. The High Court observed that by the petition before it the issue of a temporary permit in favour of Mahonar Singh alone was challenged and the period for which the permit was issued having expired, it was not possible for the Court to grant any relief to the appellants, and the remedy of the appellants against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting fresh permit lay before the Transport Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court observed "it is possible that the fact, that Manohar Singh was the holder of a temporary permit may have influenced the Regional Transport Authority in granting him a permanent permit, but it is open to the petitioner-Companies to agitate that matter before the Appellate and the Revisonal Authorities in proper proceedings and if no relief is given by the aforesaid authorities then this Court can be approached under Art. 226 of the constitution, if proper grounds exist for invoking its extraordinary powers under the aforesaid Article. . . . . . . . . The mere fact that respondent No. 4 (Mahonar Singh) held a temporary permit is not the only ground on which the permanent permit has to be granted to him. While granting the permanent permit the authorities have to follow the provisions of the statute and take into consideration the various matters that are provided for by the Motor Vehicles Act".
2. The appellants then appealed against the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The Provincial Transport Controller, Punjab, by his order dated May 29, 1959 quashed
