1. Petition to quash order rejecting stage carriage permit renewal under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, following the approval of a road transport nationalization scheme. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 207
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Sinha, C.J.I., J.L.Kapur, K.N.Wanchoo, K.Subba Rao, P.B.Gajendragadkar, JJ.
Samarth Transport Company Private Limited
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur
Case No. : 67 of 1960
Date of Decision : 9/8/60
Advocates Appeared: Daphtary C.K. : Dapthary C.K. : Dhebar R.H. : Iyengar B.R.L. : Iyer R.Ganapathy : Sastri A.V.Viswanatha
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar
Under Section 68F(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the authority can refuse to "entertain" (reject as not maintainable) a permit renewal application to give effect to an approved nationalization scheme, even if the application was filed before the scheme's approval.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 57, 58, 62, 68F and 68G - Renewal of stage carriage permits - Nationalization scheme - Power to refuse to entertain application - The Act does not prescribe a fixed outer time limit for the disposal of an application for renewal of a permit; therefore, rejection of such application after the expiry of the permit term is not without jurisdiction. (Para 6)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 68F(2) - Interpretation of "refuse to entertain" - The power of the Regional Transport Authority to refuse to entertain an application for renewal of a permit to give effect to an approved scheme is not restricted to applications filed after the approval of the scheme. The word "entertain" means to receive or keep on file; the Authority can reject an application as not maintainable once the scheme is approved, even if the application was filed prior to such approval. (Para 7)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 68C - Public Interest - Consideration of the resources of the state transport undertaking and its ability to provide better amenities to the public constitutes a valid ground in the public interest for approving a nationalization scheme. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A transport operator applied for the renewal of stage carriage permits before their expiry. During the pendency of the application, the government proposed a nationalization scheme. The authority delayed the disposal of the renewal application and issued temporary permits. After the scheme was approved by the government, the authority rejected the renewal applications on the ground that the routes were now covered by the approved scheme.
Findings of Court:
The authority was within its rights to reject the renewal applications under the provisions of the Act to give effect to the approved scheme. While the record indicated a lack of promptitude and potential bias in the timing of the disposal, the final rejection was legally sustainable.
Issues: Whether the authority had the power to reject a renewal application filed before the approval of a nationalization scheme but decided after its approval, and whether the approval of the scheme was based on extraneous considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: The term "refuse to entertain" in Section 68F(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, allows the authority to reject a renewal application as not maintainable once a scheme is approved, regardless of when the application was filed. Such power is exercisable to give effect to the approved scheme.
Result: Application dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that the authority acted with mala fides to facilitate scheme approval and that the power to refuse renewal applies only to post-approval applications. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. The authority acted within jurisdiction by rejecting renewal applications to give effect to an approved scheme, despite observations regarding the lack of fairness in procedural delays. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 )
4. The power to refuse to entertain renewal applications under Section 68F(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act includes the power to reject applications filed prior to scheme approval. (Para 7 )
5. Petition dismissed; no costs awarded. (Para 11 )
6. Does the power to refuse to entertain a renewal application under Section 68F(2) apply to applications filed before the scheme was approved?
Yes. The term entertain means to receive or keep on file. The Authority can reject an application as not maintainable once a scheme is approved, regardless of whether the application was filed before or after the approval. (Para 7 )
7. Is there a statutory time limit for the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of an application for the renewal of a permit?
No. While applications are expected to be disposed of before expiry or within a reasonable time, the Act does not prescribe a specific outer time limit for disposal. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Can the approval of a transport scheme be based on the resources and amenities provided by the State Transport Undertaking?
Yes. Considering the resources of the State Transport Undertaking and its ability to provide public amenities is a valid consideration in the public interest under Section 68C. (Para 9 )
K.SUBBA RAO, J.
(1) THIS is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution to quash the order of the first respondent dated 28/04/1960, and the scheme dated 20/04/1960, and to direct the first respondent to deal with the application of the petitioner for renewal of its permit in accordance with law.
(2) THE petitioner was doing business of motor transport in Bombay State for over 26 years. It had four permanent stage carriage permits granted some years ago and renewed from time to time to ply buses on the following routes:
(I) Yeotmal-Umerkhed . . 2 return trips.
(II) Yeotmal-Pusad. . . 4 return trips.
The term of the latest permits expired on 31/12/1959. About four months prior to the expiry of the permits the petitioner applied on 24/08/1959, for the renewal of the permits under S. 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter called the Act). On 29/10/1959, the State Transport Department published its proposed scheme for the nationalization of the road transport services in respect of an area which included the routes of the petitioner. On 9/11/1959, the petitioner wrote a letter to the secretary, the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, asking him why its application for renewal of the stage carriage permits had not been published as required by S. 57 of the Act. It also expressed its apprehension that the application was not published by the Regional Transport Authority with a view to assist the State Transport Department in ousting it from the said routes and that the Authority was creating a situation in order to force the petitioner to accept temporary permits under S. 62(d) of the Act. The secretary, the Regional Transport Authority, by his letter dated 11/11/1959, replied to the effect that the application for renewal had been published on 8/11/1959, and that the said application would be considered before the expiry date and that no question of issuing temporary permits would arise. On 19/11/1959, the Assistant Manager of the State Transport Department on behalf of the State Transport Department filed applications before the Regional Transport Authority for issue of permits to it in respect of the said two routes among others. It was mentioned therein that as per the notification published in the Bombay government Gazette dated 29/10/1959, the Provincial Transport Services proposed to take over the aforesaid routes from 1/01/1960. The Provincial Transport Services also filed objections against the renewal of the permits in favour of the petitioner. On 10/12/1959, the said applications were published in the Gazette and it was notified therein that representations, if any, should be submitted on or before 15/12/1959, and that the said objections along with the applications for permits would be considered in a meeting to be held by the Regional Transport Authority in the month of December, 1959, at Nagpur or at a later date which may be notified in due course. On 21/12/1959, the secretary of the Regional Transport Authority intimated to the petitioner that in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority scheduled to be held on 31/12/1959, it would not be possible to consider its applications for renewal due to "heavy agenda". It was also suggested to it to apply for the grant of temporary permits pending renewal in good time so that they could be issued before the due date. The petitioner on the same date replied to that letter wherein it pointed out that "the heavy agenda mentioned in your letter is, we hold, a design to cover your attempt to advance the cause of the Provincial Transport Services, (U.G.O.), Nagpur". Without prejudice to its rights the petitioner applied for temporary permits as directed by the Authority. On 29/12/1959, temporary permits were issued for one month from 1/01/1960, and thereafter they were extended for another month and made available upto 31/03/1960. The next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority scheduled to be held on 5/02/1960, was a
