ORDER.-This is rather an unfortunate case. The second respondent (V.C.K. Bus Service) applied for renewal of permit in respect of the buses TNE 5406 and MDB 7206 plying on the interState route Coimbatore to Koduvayur for a period of five years from 1st July, 1977 for the portions lying in the State of Tamil Nadu. The applications were notified under section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ((hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In response to the notification, representations were received from the revision petitioner (Cheran Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore) objecting to the renewal. It also stated therein that a draft scheme for the nationalisation of the route under section 68-C of the Act had been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 15th September, 1976 and temporary permit could be granted under section 68-F (1-A). It has further stated that the history-sheet of the applicant (V.C.K.Bus Service) was bad and no renewal could be granted. The State Transport Authority by its order dated 28th February, 1978, rejected the renewal on the ground that the permit of the second respondent herein was suspended on 12 occasions for offences like overloading etc., which the authority considered to be serious disqualification. It was also of the view that having regard to the draft scheme, the proviso to section 68-F (1-D) would apply in which case if a renewal took place, it should be to limit the same to the date of finalisation of the scheme. On this reasoning it rejected and later on granted temporary permits in order to maintain continuity of service to the revision petitioner. Against this order rejecting the request for renewal, an appeal was preferred to the Tribunal. In the appeal, interlocutory applications were taken out for issue of necessary directions under section 134 (1-A) of the Act and interim directions were issued. To cancel the interim directions, the revision petitioner took out an interim application. All these applications came up on 15th March, 1978 for consideration and the Tribunal passed an order confirming the interim directions on the view that the lower authority has not given any detail about the history-sheet excepting a passing reference that the appellant’s permit had been suspended on 12 previous occasions for offences like overs loading etc., and since this is the very crux of the matter which is to be decided in the appeal, pending the appeal discretion may be exercised under section 134 (1-A). It is against this order, Cheran Transport Corporation has come up by way of revision.

2. Mr. N.G. Krishna Iyengar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges that this is a case in which the considerations as set out under section 68-F (1-D) read with section 68-F (1-A) will have to be applied. Those considerations loomed large before the Regional Authority, namely the Transport Authority. When an appeal was filed against that order rejecting renewal on the ground that there were 12 offences against the appellant including overloading, the Tribunal ought to have considered the applicability of section 134 (1-A) to a case falling under Chapter IV-A. That has not been done. Instead, it merely grants renewal as a routine stating that the question relating to the punishment could be relegated to the final decision in the appeal. Therefore, exercise of the discretion is highly improper. More so when in order to maintain continuity of service and to avoid inconvenience to the passenger public temporary permits had been granted to the revision petitioner Corporation.

3. Mr.M.N. Rangachari, learned counsel for the second respondent in meeting these contentions urges that this is a case in which the Tribunal felt that the question relating to offences could be conveniently gone into at the final hearing of the appeal. Nevertheless, section 134 (1-A) would enable the Tribunal to exercise the discretion in favour of his client. Chapter IV-A is not a self-contained code ; nor does

Click Here to Read the rest of this document