IMPORTANT POINTS
Chapter IV-A of the Act supersedes any inconsistent provisions in Chapter IV.
The State Transport Undertaking may initiate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof in the public interest.
Grant of variation under Section 57(8) will be as good as grant of a new permit.
Section 57(8) is controlled by Section 68FF.
Once a scheme formulated under Section 68D gets approved under 68D(3) of Chapter IVA, then all the permits in the route/area covered by the scheme will get frozen by virtue of operation of Section 68FF.
The effect of Section 68FF can be altered/modified/cancelled only in the manner as provided for under Section 68E and in no other manner.
Either a grant of a new permit or the variation of an existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of an area or route covered by an Approved Scheme.
Increase in the number of trips or vehicles which were being run under the existing exempted permit under a Scheme will amount to grant of a new permit to operate one more Stage Carriage which is not permissible under Section 68FF.
The proposition of law, laid down in ‘JAYARAM’ impliedly stood overruled in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’.
The economy and coordination, two of the factors, which govern the Approved Scheme, will be seriously infringed if the variation is to be granted of the existing permit condition.
Even if there is an interstate agreement under Section 63 of the Act for increasing the number of trips, such an agreement cannot override the provisions of Chapter IV-A by virtue of Section 68B of the Act. Section 63 being in Chapter IV of the Act, the Scheme approved under Chapter IV-A will prevail over it.
The Approved Scheme will exclude the operation of other stage carriage services on the Route/Area covered by the Scheme, except those whose names are mentioned in the Scheme.
No private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorized so to do by the term of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified Route or Area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified Route or Area (ADARSH TRAVELS).

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 57 – Application for variation of permit – For either increasing the trips as well as for increasing the number of vehicles – An application for variation should be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit – All the mandatory requirements which are to be followed for the grant of a new permit have to be followed in letter and spirit – Giving a public hearing is also mandatory. (Para 40, 41)
       1990 (Supp) SCC 361 – Approved
       1984 (Supp) SCC 244 – Overruled
       1987 (2) SCC 47 – Relied upon
       1987 (Supp) SCC 648; (1983) 4 SCC 433 – Referred
       (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 68-B – Chapter IV and IV-A – Chapter IV-A having supervening effects on any inconsistent provisions contained in Chapter IV or any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law – Section 57 not being inconsistent with Chapter IV-A, applies even in respect to provisions of Chapter IV-A viz. section 68A to 68I. (Para 43)
       (c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 68C to 68F – Formulation of scheme in respect of the services to be provided in any area or route to be covered – Should have the basic consideration of efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated transport service in public interest – Publication and receipt of objections within 30 days – After approval of the scheme u/s 68F Transport Undertakings can be issued with the required permits. (Para 45)
       (d) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 68FF – Section 68FF creates a restriction on grant of permits in respect of notified area or notified route – Upon the approved scheme coming into play there will be no scope for grant of any permit in that area or the route covered by the scheme, except what is specifically permitted or provided under that scheme itself – Therefore where the State Transport Undertaking alone is exclusively permitted to operate the service in any particular area or route, right of any existing permit holder is saved either fully or partially but such operation by other private operators gets frozen – Application for variation by either increasing the trips as well as for increasing the number of vehicles by such operators will be an application for grant of a new permit – Operations of even the existing operators, on the date of the approved scheme, will be restricted to the extent and the manner in which such operation was permitted and not beyond. (Para 46)
       (1985) 4 SCC 557 – Followed
       1990 (Supp) SCC 361; 1987 (2) SCC 47 – Relied upon
       (e) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 68FF – Scheme approved u/s 68D can be modified or altered by State Transport Undertaking or the State Government as provided u/s 68E – Unless that is done, no application for variation can ever be considered. (Para 47, 48)
       Facts of the case:
       This reference to this Constitution Bench was made by a Division Bench of the Court in their order made in the case of R. Raghuram v. P. Jayarama Naidu and others reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 361.
       By order the Division Bench of the Court after noting the reference made in the case of R.Raghuram (supra) to a Constitution Bench and on finding that later the matter was then referred to a three Judge Bench, and subsequently before the three Judge Bench, the petition itself abated on account of the death of the petitioner in that case.
       Since the conflict continued to remain in these cases, the matter was referred to a Bench of three Judges. Subsequently, when the above appeal along with the connected matters was listed before a three Judge Bench, the said Bench again referred the case back for hearing before a Constitution Bench.
       The issue concerned in this reference has to be considered by referring to the decisions reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. B.A. Jayaram, 1984 (Supp) SCC 244 (‘JAYARAM’), Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. M.A. Egappan, 1987 (2) SCC 47 (‘EGAPPAN’), Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P., (1985) 4 SCC 557 (‘ADARSH TRAVELS’), Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore, 1987 (Supp) SCC 648 (‘KSRTC’) and R. Raghuram (supra) (‘RAGHURAM’).
       There is an apparent conflict in the view of the law taken in ‘JAYARAM’ and ‘EGAPPAN’. The Constitution Bench decision in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’, wherein, similar question came to be considered and decided was distinguished by a three Judge Bench in ‘KSRTC’. The case which got abated was reported in ‘RAGHURAM’. In the initial reference to a three Judge Bench which was subsequently referred to the Constitution Bench by the subsequent order dated 01.12.2004, except making a reference to the apparent conflict as between ‘JAYARAM’ and ‘EGAPPAN’ as well as the distinction in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’ made in ‘KSRTC’, there was no specific terms of reference made. However, in ‘RAGHURAM’ this Court while referring the review to a Constitution Bench has specified the terms of reference which can be culled out and can be taken as the Terms of Reference for this Bench, which is as under:
       “Whether on the publication of an approved scheme, the number of trips of the vehicles of the existing operations can be increased both by number of trips and vehicles by granting the variation of a permit even when the existing operators are allowed to carry on their business as on the date of the publication of the scheme”.
       Finding of the Court:
       Scheme approved u/s 68D can be modified or altered by State Transport Undertaking or the State Government as provided u/s 68E. Unless that is done, no application for variation can ever be considered.
       Result: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. B.A. Jayaram, 1984 (Supp) SCC 244 overruled and R. Raghuram v. P. Jayarama Naidu, 1990 (Supp) SCC 361 approved.

JUDGMENT :

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. This reference to this Constitution Bench was made by a Division Bench of this Court in their order dated 22.07.2003 made in the case of R. Raghuram Vs. P. Jayarama Naidu and others reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 361, which reference though was initially made to a Three Judges Bench, was subsequently referred to the Constitution Bench by the Three Judges Bench led by the Honourable The Chief Justice of India vide order dated 01.12.2004. As the issues raised and argued before us were common, on the question referred, we heard arguments in common.

2. We heard the arguments of Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the appellant in the C.A.No.3606/2003, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel for the appellant in C.A.No.4480/1998, Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned senior counsel for the appellant in C.A.Nos.7195-7197/2001, Mr. Amit Singh Chaddha, learned senior counsel for the appellant in C.A.3853/2003 and Mr. Raju Rammachandran, learned senior counsel for the respondents in C.A.No.4480/1998.

3. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel made his leading submissions, followed by Ms. Suri and Mr. Chaddha as well as Mr. Mariarputham, learned senior counsels for the appellants, while Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel addressed arguments on behalf of the respondents in these appeals.

4. Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the appellant in C.A.3606 of 2003 made a brief reference to the order dated 22.07.2003, by which the present reference came to be made to the Constitution Bench and the subsequent order dated 01.12.2004 as well. Learned senior counsel in his submissions, fairly pointed out that the issue concerned in this reference has to be considered by referring to the decisions reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. B.A. Jayaram and others, 1984 (Supp) SCC 244 (hereinafter referred to as ‘JAYARAM’), Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.A. Egappan, 1987 (2) SCC 47 (hereinafter referred to as ‘EGAPPAN’), Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1985) 4 SCC 557 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’), Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore and others, 1987 (Supp) SCC 648 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KSRTC’) and R. Raghuram (supra) (hereinafter referred to as ‘RAGHURAM’).

5. The learned senior counsel made a detailed reference to the list of dates commencing from 1963-64 when the initial permit in the case of appellant in C.A.3606 of 2003 viz., permit No.13/63-64 for the Route Bangalore to Hosur via., Madivala, Chandapura, Anekal, Thali, Denkanikottah and Keelamangalam came to be issued, which permit was originally granted in favour of one Mr. C. Rajasekaran and subsequently transferred to Smt. G. Kavitha Gopinath on 12.03.1998 and even thereafter transferred in favour of the present appellant Smt. A.M. Kalaivani Ammal. The learned senior counsel also referred to the application made by the appellant on 10.01.1985 to the State Transport Authority (STA), Bangalore for grant of four additional singles and one additional vehicle by the order dated 10.01.1985, the Authority granted two additional singles with inclusion of one additional vehicle. Thereafter by referring to the subsequent proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, the learned senior counsel referred to the order of the STAT, Madras as well as that of the order of the learned Single Judge in C.R.P. No. 553 of 1988 and the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.750 and 780 of 2002 dated 23.03.2002 pursuant to which the present appeal came to be filed.

6. The learned senior counsel referred to Section 48(3)(xxi), Section 57(8) and Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), which pertain to the statutory prescriptions concerning grant of variation as well as the requirement for the counter signature respectively. The learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 562

Cases Referred (5)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009