Judgement

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- Common questions of law have arisen in all these cases. The facts in Gajraj Singhs case are sufficient for disposal of all these cases. Though notices were served on respondents. Shri Goel appeared for the State on respondents, Shri Goel appeared for the State and Shri Promod Swarup for the UPSRTU, none is appearing in other cases.

2. In 1988, the appellant was granted a stage carriage permit on the Meerut-Baraut route under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) (for short, the Repealed Act) for a period of 3 years. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) (for short, the Act) came into force w.e.f. July 1, 1989. The said permit was renewed under Section 81 of the Act in 1991 for a further period of 5 years and the second renewal was granted in 1995. Respondents 3 to 17 had applied under Section 70 for grant of stage carriage permits under Section 72 on the Meerut-Gangoh route which intersects part of the route on which the appellant was operating his stage carriage. Depsite objections raised by the appellant, the State Transport Authority (for short, STA) granted permits to them November 23, 1992 which came to be challenged by the appellants in revision filed under Section 90 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, STAT). The respondents questioned the appellants locus standi under the preliminary objection that the renewal granted under Section 81 to the appellant was void. By order dated August 9, 1995, the STAT upheld the preliminary objection and held that the appellant has no locus standi to object the grant of permits to the respondents, since the renewal of the permit granted to the appellant was not valid in law as he had not got any new permit under the Act. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated October 13, 1995 made in Writ Petition No. 26132 of 1995 has upheld the order of the STAT. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

3. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contended that the renewal of the permit of the appellant granted under the Repealed Act is a permit under the Act and its operation was saved by Section 217 (2) (a) read with sub-section (4) thereof. Therefore, the second renewal granted under Section 81 was valid in law. There was no need for the appellant to obtain a fresh permit under the Act as the renewal is a continuation of the original permit which is a vested right. The effect of saving provisions in Section 217 (2) (a) is to allow all the permits granted under the Repealed Act to continue after renewal under the Act. Section 217 (2) (a) and sub-section (4), thus, obviate the need to obtain fresh permit under the Act and, therefore, it would be unnecessary. In support thereof, h0e placed strong reliance on M/s. Gurcharan Singh Baldev Singh v. Yashwant Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 428: (1991 AIR SCW 2889). He further contended that this Court in Secretary, Quillon Distt. Motor Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 210: (1994 AIR SCW 4095) did not intend to lay down that after the Act came into force, all the holders of stage carriage permits granted under the Repealed Act would be required to obtain fresh permits under the Act. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (for short, the GC Act) read with Section 217 (2) (a) and (4) saves operation of all those permits which were alive when the Act came into force. Consequently, renewals granted under Section 81 were valid. For contra construction, an argument of inconvenience was forcefully projected. He argued that Section 217 (2) (b) would be applicable only if the permit is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act in which event the life of the permit granted under the Repealed Act gets extended only for the balance period of permit.

4. Shri S. K. Dhaon, learned Counsel appearing in C.A.SLP (C) No. 27335/95, contended that the permits granted to the existing operators under the nationalised scheme in Chapter IV