Back
1977 Supreme(Raj) 65
Rajasthan High Court
RAJINDAR SACHAR
Srinath Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. No. 78 of 1977
Decided On : 06/05/1977
L.L. Sharma, for Petitioner; R.N. Munshee, Intervener; O.P. Sharma, for Respondent No. 3.
The interpretation of the scheme under S. 68-C and S. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the permissibility of combining powers under S. 62 and S. 68-F (1-C) of the Act to issue a temporary permit.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Temporary Permit - Grant of - Conditions - Interpretation of Scheme under S. 68-C and S. 68-D - Permissibility of combining powers under S. 62 and S. 68-F (1-C) - Existence of temporary need - Judicial review.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the grant of a temporary permit to respondent No. 3 on the Kota-Mangrol route, arguing that it overlapped with a notified route under S. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and that the permit was issued without considering the temporary need.
Finding of the Court:
The court interpreted the scheme under S. 68-C and S. 68-D and held that the portion of the route from Kota to Tater was not a portion of total exclusion for all operators, but only for those who were not operating at the time the scheme was approved. The court also held that the power to issue a temporary permit can be exercised by invoking power both under S. 62 and S. 68-F (1-C) of the Act, and that the existence of a permanent vacancy and a temporary need can coexist.
Issues: 1. Whether the portion of the route from Kota to Tater was a portion of total exclusion for all operators or only for those who were not operating at the time the scheme was approved? 2. Whether the power to issue a temporary permit can be exercised by invoking power both under S. 62 and S. 68-F (1-C) of the Act? 3. Whether the existence of a permanent vacancy and a temporary need can coexist?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the scheme under S. 68-C and S. 68-D and held that the portion of the route from Kota to Tater was not a portion of total exclusion for all operators, but only for those who were not operating at the time the scheme was approved. The court reasoned that the scheme specifically provided that the concession of allowing private buses to operate on the portion of the notified route from Kota to Tater was not restricted only to the then existing permit holders but was to operate in favor of all permit holders who may in future be allowed to bifurcate their route from Tater. 2. The court held that the power to issue a temporary permit can be exercised by invoking power both under S. 62 and S. 68-F (1-C) of the Act. The court reasoned that S. 68-F (1-C) has laid down an embargo on the issue of the temporary permit on the route on the draft scheme (even if conditions of S. 62 are complied with) unless the conditions laid down under S. 68-F (1-C) are complied with. The consequence is that when a person applies for a temporary permit, the issuing authority has to see that not only he complies with the conditions laid down in sub-s. (1-C) of S. 68-F, if temporary permit is also to include a portion of the route mentioned in draft scheme under S. 68-C of the Act. 3. The court held that the existence of a permanent vacancy and a temporary need can coexist. The court reasoned that there may be circumstances in which both may co-exist and in that case, the grant of temporary permit would be permissible.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the grant of the temporary permit to respondent No. 3 was valid and that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments.
ORDER:- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to quash and set aside the order of respondent No. 1, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, dated March 7, 1977, by which it has granted a temporary permit to respondent No. 3 on KotaMangrole route and to quash the permit issued to it.
2. A draft scheme under S. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for nationalisation of a number of routes was published on April 24, 1973. One of the routes published (with which we are concerned) was Kota-Kasbathana via Tater. The distance between the Kota Municipal limits and Tater is 6.5 kilometers. The objections to the draft scheme came to be considered by the Joint Legal Remembrancer, who, by order dated May 7, 1976, approved the scheme with the modifications etc. mentioned in the said order. One of the points pressed before him was that as Tater is only at a distance of 6.5 kilometers from the Municipal Council, Kota, overlapping by private buses up to Tater, should be allowed. The said plea was accepted by him and he therefore held,-
"....... in public interest, I consider it appropriate that upto Tater the buses of private operators shall be allowed to pass and there shall be no curtailments from the permits. To this extent these concessions shall be available not only to existing operators but to others also, who may be allowed to bifurcate their route from this traffic point."
(emphasis supplied).
The said scheme was approved and published under S. 68-D of the Act on June 15, 1976. A further corrigendum was issued to the said notification by the Gavernment notification of July 16, 1976. As a consequence, cls. 4 and 5 of the scheme provided that excepting the State Transport Undertaking and State Transport Undertakings of other States either under existing inter-State agreements or inter-State agreements to be entered into future and also operators on the existing amalgamated route of Kota-Khatoli-Gota-Piploda route and other routes which bifurcate from Tater, no other person will be entitled to ply stage carriage on this route.
3. A draft scheme under S. 68-C of the Act for the route Kota-Khatoli via Tater-Dhabri has also been published on April 3, 1976. The said scheme has not yet been approved under S. 68-D of the Act.
4. There is a Kota-Tater-Dhabri-Magrol route on which the petitioner along with certain other persons is operating. This route of Kota-Mangrol overlaps the notified route under S. 68-D of Kota to Kasbathana from Kota up to Tater. It also overlaps the route of draft scheme under S. 68-C of the Act of Kota to Khatoli from Kota to Dhabri via Tater. The portion from Dhabri to Mangrol is not on a route under S. 68-D or 68-C of the Act.
5. It appears that prior to 1971, there was a scope of 4 buses and three services on Kota-Mangrol route. This has now been revised to 7 buses with six return services. The Regional Transport Authority has granted two temporary permits on this Kota-Mangrol route (the same however is not under challenge before me) and need not concern us.
6. As there was scope for one permit, respondent No. 3 applied on Jan. 29, 1977 for a temporary permit under Section 68-F (1-C) and S. 62 (1) (c) of the Act on the ground that there is shortage of buses to cope up with the increased traffic from Kota to Mangrol via Sultanpur-Dhabri to Swali. This application was rejected by the R.T.A. on Feb. 11, 1977 on the ground that there was no temporary need and also because part of the route had been notified and that part of the route has been notified under S. 68-C. Respondent No. 3 was aggrieved and went in appeal before respondent No. 1 which by its order dated March 7, 1977, has granted temporary permit for a period of 4 months to respondent No. 3 with the condition that the same will be invalid when the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation's buses start on the route or a part of the route under nationalisation scheme. The petitioner is ag
