SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 509

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Achyut Shivram Gokhale, Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Officer and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1622 of 1987, D/- 16-8-1988.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S.N.Kacker, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. J. Wad and Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mr. G. Ramaswamy, Addl.Solicitor General, Mr. A. S. Bhasme, Mr. K.R. Nagaraja and Mr. R.S. Hegde, Advocates with him, for Respondents; Mr. A. Mariaputham, Advocate, for the Intervener.

Advocates:
A.MARIAPUTHAM, A.S.BHASME, ARUNA AFATHUR, G.RAMASVAMY, J.VAD, K.R.NAGARAJA, R.S.HEGDE, S.N.KACKAR

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 63 – Question involved in this case relates to the right of a person to obtain a special permit under sub-sec. (6) of S. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to ply a public service vehicle on routes or portions thereof in respect of which a scheme approved under S. 68-D of the Act providing for exclusive operation of contract carriages on the said routes by a State transport undertaking to the complete exclusion of all other persons has been brought into force – By a notification of the Act by the Government of Maharashtra, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation was authorised to operate contract carriage services in the entire area of the State of Maharashtra and on all routes and portions thereof failing within the said area to the complete exclusion of all other persons except those falling under the seven categories of persons mentioned therein, namely, (1) a State Transport Undertaking, as defined holders of duly countersigned permits on inter-State routes save those falling under the second proviso to S. 63(1) of the Act, (3) holders of contract carriage permits for operation of motor cars; (4) holders of contract carriage permits granted for operation of air-conditioned vehicles –Held, In the present case the High Court of Bombay erred in not taking note of the distinguishing features that existed between a contract carriage permit and a special permit – It is significant that in the State of Maharashtra the Regional Transport Authorities had not taken the view until the High Court pronounced this judgment that in no event a special permit could be issued to a person other than the Corporation and the seven classes of persons who were excluded from the operation of the scheme – They were issuing special permits to such persons on the production of a No Objection Certificate issued by the Corporation – Special permit could not be issued after the publication of the approved scheme even when the Corporation had issued a No Objection Certificate because the scheme did not provide that the clause regarding exclusion of other persons from operating contract carriages would cease to operate if the Corporation issued a No Objection Certificate – Insistence on the production of a No Objection Certificate by the Corporation by a person applying for a special permit of the Act was therefore wholly unwarranted – Court are of the view that the provision in the scheme which excludes operation of contract carriage services by persons other than those who are permitted to do so under the Scheme refers to only those persons who wish to operate contract carriage services under permits issued under Section 51 of the Act – Order accordingly.

Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH J. :- The question involved in this case relates to the right of a person to obtain a special permit under sub-sec. (6) of S. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to ply a public service vehicle on routes or portions thereof in respect of which a scheme approved under S. 68-D of the Act providing for exclusive operation of contract carriages on the said routes by a State transport undertaking to the complete exclusion of all other persons has been brought into force.

2. By a notification dated 29th Nov. 1973 published under S. 68-D(3) of the Act by the Government of Maharashtra, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) was authorised to operate contract carriage services in the entire area of the State of Maharashtra and on all routes and portions thereof failing within the said area to the complete exclusion of all other persons except those falling under the seven categories of persons mentioned therein, namely, (1) a State Transport Undertaking, as defined under S. 68-A(b) of the Act, (2) holders of duly countersigned permits on inter-State routes save those falling under the second proviso to S. 63(1) of the Act, (3) holders of contract carriage permits for operation of motor cars; (4) holders of contract carriage permits granted for operation of air-conditioned vehicles only; (5) holders of contract carriage permits for operation of vehicles owned by them exclusively for transportation of persons, employed by them or students or members of their institutions from and to their residences and respective places of work or study and for occasional tours and excursions; (6) holders of contract carriage permits for operation wholly within the municipal limits of Greater Bombay, and cities of Poona, Sholapur and Kolhapur where the municipal authorities are operating road transport service; and (7) holders of contract carriage permits granted to them exclusively for the daily transportation at appointed hours and between specified terminals and pickup points of only the persons employed by or studying in establishments and institutions with which the said permit holders have specific contract for the purpose. The said scheme came into force on January, 1974. The appellant, who did not belong to any one of the above seven categories applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Bombay (C) for a special permit under sub-sec. (6) of S. 63 of the Act in relation to the motor vehicle bearing No. MRL-8088 for plying it on the route Bombay to Ashta Vinayak via Panvel, Mahad, Poona, Shirdi etc. for a period of five days, namely from 18-9-1985 to 22-9-1985 in Form P. Co. Sp. A in accordance with R. 80 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959. The application made by the appellant for the special permit was rejected by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority on the ground that the appellant had not produced a No Objection Certificate issued by the Corporation for the grant of a special permit by his Order dated 17-9-1985. It was also stated that the Corporation being the operator having the exclusive privilege in the entires area of Maharashtra State to operate contract carriages under the scheme it was the primary duty of the Corporation to provide transport facilities to the intending passengers and if it failed to do so, the Corporation could issue a No Objection Certificate to enable other intending operators to enter into contract. Hence it was held that in the absence of the No Objection Certificate issued by the Corporation no special permit could be issued under S. 63(6) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the appellant filed an appeal under S. 64 of the Act before the Maharashtra State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. The Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that a special permit issued under S. 63(6) of the Act was not a contract carriage permit issued under the Act and tha










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top