Back
1958 Supreme(Raj) 66
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : I.N. Modi, Jagat Narayan
Bhanwarlal - Appellant
Versus
The Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority - Respondent
Civil Writ Case No. 163 of 1957
Decided On : 02/27/1958
Appearance :
Ratanlal, for the Appellant
Jai Gopal Chhangani, for the Respondents
A temporary permit granted under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is appealable under Clause (f) of Section 64 of the Act, and the grant of such a permit is violative of the proviso to Section 62 if applications for new permanent permits in connection with the same route or area are pending before the Regional Transport Authority.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 64(f) - APPEAL - TEMPORARY PERMIT - GRANT OF - RIGHT OF APPEAL TO RIVAL PERMIT-HOLDER - PROVISO TO S. 62 - GRANT OF TEMPORARY PERMIT - PENDING APPLICATION FOR NEW PERMIT - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was granted a temporary permit for plying a stage carriage on the Pokaran Phalsoond route via Ujlan Bhaniyana by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur. The opposite party, a holder of one stage carriage permit on the same route, opposed the grant of the temporary permit but was overruled. The Regional Transport Authority had been of the opinion that the Pokaran Phalsoond route and the Phalsoond-Shergarh route should be amalgamated into one and permits may be granted for the extended route from Pokaran to Shergarh. It rejected certain applications for additional permanent permits on the Pokaran Phalsoond route and also rejected the petitioner’s application for a temporary permit. The opposite party went in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority and secured a stay order in connection with the consideration of the application for the extended route. The petitioner again applied for a temporary permit, which was granted along with another similar permit. The opposite party appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which directed stay of the operation of the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority and ordered that if any of the grantees had been issued a permit before the stay order was passed, they be stopped from plying their vehicles on the said route. The petitioner challenged the order by way of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of a temporary permit to the petitioner was appealable under Clause (f) of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It further held that the grant of the temporary permit in this case fell within the mischief of the proviso to Section 62 of the Act as amended in 1956.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of the Regional Transport Authority by which it granted a temporary permit to the petitioner was appealable under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act? 2. Whether the grant of a temporary permit to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority in the present case was violative of the proviso to Section 62 (as amended) inasmuch as applications for new permanent permits in connection with the Pokaran Phalsoond route were pending before the Regional Transport Authority at the time it granted the temporary permit to the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the word ‘permit’ in Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to include a temporary permit. It held that the use of the word ‘permit’ in the various sections of the Act also includes a temporary permit unless the use of this word is sought to be limited to permits other than temporary and in such cases the Act seeks clearly to lay down that a given provision does not apply to temporary permits. 2. The court held that the proviso to Section 62 of the Act, as amended in 1956, clearly means that where an application for the grant of a new stage carriage permit or for a public carrier’s permit have been made before a Regional Transport Authority and is pending before it with respect to a certain route or area specified in such application, then a temporary permit under Section 62 shall, in no case, be granted in respect of such route or area.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and directed that the parties will bear their own costs.
I.N. Modi, J.-This is a writ application by Bhanwarlal under Articles 226 and 227ofthe Constitution and arises Mnder the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner was granted a temporary permit for plying a stage carriage on the Pokaran Phalsoond route via Ujlan Bhaniyana by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, on 25-9-1957. Accordingly the petitioner put one bus on the route on 19-11-1957. Opposite party No. 3 Laxminarain Gandhi is the holder of one stage carriage permit on this very route. He opposed the grant of the temporary permit in question to the petitioner but the Regional Transport Authority overruled the objection and granted the permit. It appears from the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated 25, 26, and 27-9-1957, that the said authority had been of the opinion that the Pokaran Phalsoond route and the Phalsoond-Shergarh route should be amalgamated into one and permits may be granted for the extended route from Pokaran to Shergarh and to that end it invited fresh applications for the extended route. It further appears that on this view, the Regional Transport Authority rejected certain applications for the grant of additional permanent permits on the Pokaran Phalsoond route and also rejected the petitioner’s application for a temporary permit. This happened in May, 1957. It is admitted that the Opposite party Laxminarain Gandhi went in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority and was successful in securing a stay order in connection with the consideration of the application for the extended route. Thereupon the present petitioner again applied for a temporary permit to the Regional Transport Authority on 21-7-1957. On the 29th July, the opposite party Laxminarain and another person Kartaram Chowdhari also filed two applications for permanent permits on the Pokaran Phalsoond route. All these applications came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, on 25 to 27-9-1957, and it ordered that a temporary permit valid for four months be granted to the petitioner and another similar permit to one Hamirsingh with whom we are not concerned in the present application. The opposite party Laxminarain thereupon went in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority. That tribunal by its order dated the 20th November 1957 directed stay of the operation of the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority No. 53 dated the 25th to 27th September, 1957, and it further directed that if any of the grantees had been issued a permit before the stay order was passed by the Appellate Authority, the grantee or grantees as the case may be, be stopped from plying their vehicles on the said route. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid order by this writ application.
3. Thepetitioner’s contention, briefly stated, is that the Appellate Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction inasmuch as no appeal to that authority was competent against the grant of a temporary permit. It is also contended that the stay order passed by the Appellate Tribunal virtually amounted to the cancellation or suspension of the temporary permit and that no such cancellation or suspension could be ordered and in any case without hearing the petitioner.
4. This application is opposed by the Appellate Tribunal and Laxminarain Gandhi. Their contention is two-fold. In the first place it is urged that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of a temporary permit to the petitioner was appealable under Clause (f) of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. IV) of 1939. In the second place, it is also contended that the grant of a temporary permit to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority in the present case was violative of the proviso to Section 62
(as amended) inasmuch as applications for new permanent permits in connection with the Pokaran Phalsoond route were pending before the Regional Transport Authority at the time it granted
