1994 Supreme(SC) 1203

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., R.M. Sahai and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 540-542 and 8437-8480 of 1994 and W.P. (C) Nos. 361 and 365 of 1991
Decided On: 29.11.1994
Tmt. T.P.K. Thilagavathy Appellants
Vs.
Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District, Erode and Ors. Respondent

Headnote:

Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 - Sections 3,4,5,6(4),3(4),7,8,9,10 ,11- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 68-D(2) - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Challenge - Effect of publication of draft scheme was that private stage carriage operators were excluded from operating on any part of it - But on various routes there were bifurcations and State Transport Authorities issued new permits and renewed existing permits for these routes which in course of its journey traversed part of notified route under impression that exclusion of private operators under Scheme was partial only - It was challenged by State Transport Undertaking and its claim was upheld and such permits which overlapped even a portion of nationalised route were declared invalid - One of such permit-holders who was an operator on a non-notified route while getting its permit renewed got permission to ply on a route part of which overlapped notified route approached this Court and in Pandtyan Roadways decision of High Court was upheld and it was that in view of decision given by Constitution Bench in Travels Bus Service and Anr. v. State of U.P and Ors permits granted by State to state carriage operators which overlapped any part of notified route were invalid - Court that only those operators were entitled to ply on part of notified routes who were permitted to do so by scheme itself - Effect of this decision was that large number of permits of private operators nearly were rendered invalid - To meet this extraordinary situation when vehicles run by small operators were in danger of going off road which was oppressive not only to operators but it exposed public to great hardship and inconvenience and made it well-nigh impossible either for State or Undertaking to replace vehicles which involved an expenditure of nearly crores State issued Government Order to authorities to renew permits of such operators and requested Undertaking not to oppose it - It also introduced a Bill object of which was to grant permits to small operators to ply their stage carriage on any portion of area or route covered by draft schemes or approved schemes - Bill was assented to by President as well but it was not published consequently it never came into force - In meantime Motor Vehicles Act was repealed by Parliament and Motor Vehicles Act came into force from - It permitted pending schemes to be published and approved within one year after expiry of which it was to lapse - Schemes therefore had to be approved on or before - In State there were schemes which had been published and were pending approval - Out of these schemes were approved between - Chapter of new Act contains similar provisions as were in Chapter of repealed Act - Effect of approval of schemes under new Act and interpretation placed by this Court in Pandiyan Roadways was that no private operator could ply on part of notified route and Government Order had to be withdrawn - Whether operation by To exclusion of other persons State Transport Undertaking as described in item below - Shall be to exclusion of other persons or otherwise - Whether such exclusion To complete exclusion of other shall be complete or partial persons in respect of permits covering entire route referred to in item above - Whether it is proposed Yes - To allow other persons to operate buses as on sector of routes covered by scheme - Whether it is proposed Yes - To allow other persons to pick up or drop passengers between any two places on route covered by scheme - Held, Section is not happily worded - Literally read it may clash with Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of Act - Reliance was placed on expression and ending with date of publication of this Act in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette - It was urged that this clearly indicated that any permit granted between and date of publication of Act namely would be valid - According to counsel High Court committed an error of law in dismissing writ petition filed by appellants on basis that their permits having been granted or counter-signed after were invalid and contrary to Scheme of Act - A superficial reading of Section 10 does give an impression that operation of Act for purposes of grant of permit stood extended not only upto but upto - But that would be in teeth of Sub-section (4) of Section 6 and Section 3 itself - Purport of Act was to protect those operators who had been issued permits between and not to depart from interpretation placed by this Court - Legislature while protecting past mistakes of Government has taken care not to repeat it in future - This is not discrimination but accepting decision given by this Court - Further it is a validating provision - In absence of it action of authorities granting permits which was legislatively made permissible by Sections 3 and 4 would not have been saved - It too ceased to operate from in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 which reads as under provisions of Act be deemed to have come into force on and remain in force upto and inclusive of and Section 6 shall be deemed to have come into force - A provision which was legislatively dead on could not be deemed to be alive for purpose of grant of permit because of expression date of publication of this Act in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette appearing in provision - High Court thus did not commit any error in dismissing writ petition of those operators whose claim for new permit after was rejected by authorities - Appeals Dismissed