JUDGMENT

R. M. SAHAI, J.:- The only legal question that arises for consideration, in this appeal directed against judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is, if an application filed by an operator for renewal of his permit under Section 58 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, became extinct and was rendered non-existent, in eye of law, after coming into force of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or it being a right within meaning of clause (c) of Section 6 of General Clauses Act survived and continued despite repeal of 1939 Act.

2. The appellant, holder of a permit, for operating stage carrier on route Eklera Narsinghgarh in District Raigarh, applied for its renewal, as required, on 18th October; 1988, 120 days before the date of its expiry on 18th February, 1989 under Section 58(2) of the 1939 Act. The application was published on 23rd June, 1989, under Section 57(3) of the Act. But before renewal could be granted 1988 Act came into force on 1st July, 1989. The respondent who, too, had applied on 30th , December, 1988 for a fresh permit on the same route and on the same time schedule, withdrew his application and filed a fresh application on 18th May, 1990. The Regional Transport Authority after considering both the applications allowed renewal of the appellants permit from 18th February, 1989 to 18th February, 1994. The application of respondent was rejected as that could be considered only if the appellants existing permit was cancelled, but since the appellant was operating on the route regularly and paying taxes etc. there was no reason to refuse renewal. In an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that no appeal against renewal was maintainable against which the respondent filed writ petition which was allowed and it was held that right to seek renewal of permit under a Motor Vehicles Act was not a vested right. It was merely an inchoate right which ripens into a right only on being granted. But before this could happen the 1939 Act was repealed. Effect of it was that the application ceased to exist. Thus there was nothing pending which could empower the Regional Transport Authority to grant renewal.

3. Is this correct? Could the application for renewal be dismissed only because of enforcement of 1988 Act or the right of the appellant to get his application under the earlier Act decided in accordance with law subsisted and survived under the new Act as well. The answer shall depend on construction of Section 217, the repealing and saving provision, in 1988 Act read with Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 217 of 1988 Act repeals 1939 Act. But sub-section (2) saves certain notifications, rules, regulations, Acts etc. Clause (b) of subsection (2) reads as under:-

217(2). Notwithstanding the repeal by subsection (1) of the repealed enactments,-

"(b) any certificate of fitness or registration or licence or permit issued or granted under the repealed enactments shall continue to have effect after such commencement under the same conditions and for the same period as if this Act had not been passed;"

On strength of this it was urged on behalf of the respondents that the only saving was in respect of unexpired period of a permit. However what is relevant is sub-section (4) of Sec. 217 which provides as follows:-

"S. 217(4) - The mention of particular matter in this Section shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), with regard to the effect of repeals."

How such a provision should be construed was explained by this Court in The Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. v. Janardan Ramchandra Kulkarni, (1960) 3 SCR 85. It was held that such a provision was not by way of abundant caution and any proceedings pending under repealed Act could be continued in view of Section 6 of General Clauses Act. Section 658 of Companies Act, 1956 which was a repealing and saving provision which was considered by the Court read as under (para 3 of