Back
1984 Supreme(Raj) 208
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.S.SIDHU
GOPAL DAS - Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition 1465 Of 1984
Decided On : 12/03/1984
FASIUDDIN, N.L.Jain, S.M.MEHTA
A State Transport Undertaking is not entitled to a temporary permit under S. 68-F (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, after the expiry of one week from the date of the order under S. 68-D (2).
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Temporary Permit - State Transport Undertaking - Application - Time Limit - RTA's Power to Issue Temporary Permit - Conditions - Duration - Interpretation of S. 68-F (1-A), (1-B), (1-C), (1-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Fact of the Case:
The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) published a scheme for nationalization of passenger road transport on Bayana-Kalsada-Talchidi-Todabhim route in 1976. The scheme was approved under S. 68-D (2) on Feb. 28, 1980, but not published under S. 68-D (3). RSRTC did not apply for a temporary permit under S. 68-F (1-A) till Aug. 1984. Petitioners obtained temporary permits under S. 68-F (1-C) in Oct. 1980, renewed from time to time, expiring on Sept. 19, 1984. RSRTC applied for three temporary permits under S. 68-F (1-A) in Aug. 1984. RTA rejected petitioners' applications and granted temporary permits to RSRTC on Sept. 27, 1984.
Finding of the Court:
The RTA did not have the power or jurisdiction to issue temporary permits to RSRTC in Aug. 1984. RSRTC's application was not maintainable in law. The RTA had already granted temporary permits to the petitioners in Oct. 1980, under S. 68-F (1-C) on the implied footing that RSRTC had not made any application for such permits before Mar. 8, 1980, and had thus disqualified itself from making any such application thereafter.
Issues: 1. Whether the RTA had the power or jurisdiction to issue temporary permits to RSRTC in Aug. 1984 when RSRTC applied for such permits for the first time? 2. Whether the RTA could entertain the application of RSRTC in Aug. 1984, and issue temporary permits to it in Sept. 1984 by displacing the petitioners who had been plying their stage carriages on the basis of temporary permits issued to them in Oct. 1980 and renewed thereafter from time to time till Sept. 19, 1984?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. S. 68-F (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provides that a State Transport Undertaking may apply for a temporary permit for the period intervening between the date of publication of the scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme. S. 68-F (1-B) (ii) provides that such temporary permit shall be effective until the expiration of one week from the date on which the order under S. 68-D (2) is made. 2. S. 68-F (1-C) provides that if no application for a temporary permit is made under S. 68-F (1-A), the RTA may grant a temporary permit to any person, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit. Such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking. 3. In the instant case, RSRTC did not apply for a temporary permit under S. 68-F (1-A) till Aug. 1984, after the expiry of one week from the date of the order under S. 68-D (2). Therefore, the RTA did not have the power or jurisdiction to issue temporary permits to RSRTC in Aug. 1984.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The impugned order, dt. Sept. 27, 1984, made by the RTA was set aside. The RTA was directed to consider afresh the applications of the three writ petitioners for renewal of their temporary permits issued under S. 68-F (1-C) of the Act for such period as permissible under law and subject to such other conditions as the RTA thinks fit in the interest of the travelling public.
K. S. SIDHU, J.
( 1 ) THE fate of the three writ petitions, listed above, depends on answer to a question of law which may be formulated as follows : if a State Transport Undertaking does not make an application under S. 68-F (1-A), M. V. Act, 1939, for a temporary permit for plying a stage carriage, till the expiry of one week from the date on which the order of approval of a scheme of nationalisation of passenger transport is made under sub-sec. (2) of S. 68-D of the said Act, is it legally permissible for the authority concerned to issue a temporary permit to the State Transport Undertaking on the basis of its application made after the expiry of the aforesaid period of one week?
( 2 ) THE undisputed facts in the three writ petitions may be shortly stated here. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, which is the State Transport Undertaking for the State of Rajasthan, prepared a scheme of nationalisation of passenger road transport on Bayana-Kalsada-Talchidi-Todabhim route (66 kilometers in length), and published it in the Official Gazette in accordance with the provisions of S. 68-C, M. V. Act, 1939 (for short, the Act) in the year 1976. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) fixed a scope of 5 stage carriages with 4 return trips on this route under S. 47 (3) of the Act. Two private operators were already holding two permits for plying their stage carriages on this route at the time of the publication of the draft-scheme under S. 68-C. There was thus still scope left for three more stage carriages with two return trips on this route. The draft scheme of nationalisation of this route which had been published in 1976 was approved under S. 68-D (2) on Feb. 28, 1980. Curiously enough, the scheme as approved under S. 68-D (2) has not so far been published by the State Government in the Official Gazette under S. 68-D (3), with the result that notwithstanding the order of approval, dt. Feb. 28, 1980, the scheme of nationalisation has not yet become final and cannot be treated as an "approved scheme" and the route in question cannot be called a "notified route" as envisaged by S. 68-D (3) of the Act.
( 3 ) IT is common ground between the parties that the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the Corporation) did not make any application under S. 68-F (1-A) of the Act for temporary permit on this route till Aug. 1984. The three petitioners herein had, however, obtained three temporary permits under S. 68-F (1-C) on and after Oct. 23, 1980. Those permits were renewed from time to time in their favour, each renewal being of four months duration. The latest renewal of their temporary permits expired on Sept. 19, 1984. They applied for further renewal. The Corporation also applied for three temporary permits on this route under S. 68-F (1-A) of the Act for the first time in Aug. 1984. The RTA considered the petitioners applications under S. 68-F (1-A) in a meeting held on Sept. 19,1984. By its order, dt. Sept. 27, 1984, the RTA rejected the applications of the petitioners and consequently refused to renew their temporary permits beyond Sept. 19, 1984. Instead, the RTA granted three fresh temporary permits to the Corporation in the purported exercise of its powers to issue such permits under S. 68-F (1-A)of the Act
( 4 ) THE petitioners have filed their respective writ petitions under Art 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the orders of the RTA, dt. Sept. 27, 1984, issuing the temporary permits to the Corporation and rejecting the petitioners applications for renewal of their temporary permits to ply their vehicles on this route. They are seeking writs directing the RTA to cancel the temporary permits issued to the Corporation, and to renew their temporary permits to enable them to ply their stage carriages on this route.
( 5 ) MR. N. L. Jain, the Advocate-General for the State of Rajasthan entered appearance on behalf of the Corporation, and opposed the writ petitions at the admission
