Interpretation of S. 64(b) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the scope and effect of permit variation.

Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Competency of Appeal - S. 64(b) and (f) - S. 57(8) - The court discussed the interpretation of S. 64(b) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the scope and effect of permit variation. The court held that the appellant did not have the right of appeal under S. 64(b) as the variation did not concern a permit issued to the appellant. The court also agreed with the view that persons providing transport facilities aggrieved by a variation can appeal only under S. 64(f).
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a bus service company, appealed against the decision allowing a variation in the route of a competing bus operator. The appellant claimed the appeal was competent under S. 64(b) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant did not have the right of appeal under S. 64(b) as the variation did not concern a permit issued to the appellant. The court also held that persons providing transport facilities aggrieved by a variation can appeal only under S. 64(f).
Issues: Competency of appeal under S. 64(b) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted S. 64(b) and (f) and held that the appellant did not have the right of appeal under S. 64(b) as the variation did not concern a permit issued to the appellant. The court also agreed with the view that persons providing transport facilities aggrieved by a variation can appeal only under S. 64(f).
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 498 of 1958, Messrs. V.G.K. Bus Service (Private) Limited is the appellant before as. The company is operating buses from Coduvayur to Coimbatore via Thattamangalam and Velanthavalam.

2. Velanthavalam is on the frontier between the Kerala State and the Coimbatore District of the Madras State. The distance between Thattamangalam and Velanthavalam is 17 miles and the distance between Valanthavalam and Coimbatore is 16 miles.

3. The third respondent Messrs. P. N. Krishna Iyer & Sons (Private) Limited was a bus operator from Trichur to Velanthavalam via Thattamangalam. That company applied for an extension of its route from Velanthavalam to Coimbatore The R. T. B. Trichur, over-ruled the objections of the appellant and allowed the variation.

4. The appellant then appealed under S.64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. That appeal was heard on 29-11-1957 by the first respondent and dismissed on 12-3-1958 on the preliminary ground that it was not maintainable.

5. The appellant then invoked Art.228 of the Constitution and challenged the correctness of the decision by O.P. No. 498 of 1958. Vaidialingam, J. before whom the petition came up for hearing, dismissed the petition with costs on 30-1-1959.

6. The only question for determination is whether an appeal is competent in the circumstances of this case. The contention of the appellant is that it is competent under

S. 64(b) and [f] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 S.64(a), (b) and (f) read as follows:

"Any person

[a] aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, or

[b] aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof, or

[f] being a local authority or police authority or an association which, or a person providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto, may within the prescribed lime and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard."

7. There can be no doubt that the appellant is a person affected by the variation. As a result of it the competition to be faced from the third respondent has been extended from a distance of 17 miles to a distance of 33 miles. The variation, however, is not of any permit issued to the appellant and it is hence not possible to say that he has a right of appeal under S.64 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In AIR. 1952 Madras 545 Rajamannar, C.J. and Venkatarama Iyer J., said:

"The expression ‘the permit' in that clause must obviously refer to the permit mentioned in clause [a]. That permit is a permit granted to any person by the Transport Authority. We think the proper construction of that clause is to confine its application to persons aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permits granted to them or again aggrieved by any variation of the conditions of such permits granted to them. That clause does not confer a right on one person to appeal against an order varying the conditions of a permit granted to another person."

8. S.64 (f) deals with the grant of permits and prima facie not with any variation thereof. Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to S.57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which says:

"An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or in the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the number of services above the specified maximum, or in the case of a contract carriage permit or a public carrier's permit by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit, shall be treated as an application for grant of a new permit:

Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of a stage carriage permit who provides

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1961 Supreme(Ker) 60

Interpretation of S. 64(b) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the scope and effect of permit variation.

Cases Referred (2)