Back
1980 Supreme(All) 261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. N. Singh and S. J. Hyder, JJ.
SUDHIR SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
S.T.A.(T) - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. 2904 Of 1979
Decided On : 07/02/1980
The grant of temporary permits to the Corporation under Section 68-F (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, resulted in the cessation of the effectiveness of permits granted to private operators on the notified routes under Section 68-C, regardless of whether the Corporation's permits were for shorter or longer routes.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 68-F (1-A), (1-B), (1-C), (1-D) - TEMPORARY PERMITS - GRANT TO STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING - EFFECT ON PERMITS GRANTED TO PRIVATE OPERATORS - CESSATION OF EFFECTIVENESS - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a permanent stage carriage permit holder, challenged the grant of stage carriage permits to respondents on the Moradabad-Kashipur-Ramnagar route and the dismissal of his revision by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Undertaking (Corporation) had applied for temporary permits under Section 68-F (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and obtained permits for larger routes overlapping the notified routes under Section 68-C, while respondents held permits for the notified routes.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the permits granted to the respondents ceased to be effective by operation of law under Section 68-F (1-C) of the Act upon the grant of temporary permits to the Corporation under Section 68-F (1-A). The court interpreted Section 68-F (1-C) as providing for the cessation of permits granted to private operators when the Corporation obtains permits for the notified routes, regardless of whether the Corporation's permits are for shorter or longer routes.
Issues: 1. Whether the permits granted to the respondents ceased to be effective upon the grant of temporary permits to the Corporation under Section 68-F (1-A) of the Act? 2. Whether the Corporation's permits for larger routes overlapping the notified routes under Section 68-C affected the applicability of Section 68-F (1-C)? 3. Whether the petitioner, as an existing operator on the notified route, had the locus standi to challenge the respondents' permits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 68-F (1-C) as providing for the cessation of permits granted to private operators when the Corporation obtains permits for the notified routes, regardless of whether the Corporation's permits are for shorter or longer routes. The court reasoned that the scheme of Chapter IV-A of the Act excludes private operators from carrying on business on notified routes once the Corporation is plying its vehicles under permits granted by the transport authorities. 2. The court held that the Corporation's permits for larger routes overlapping the notified routes did not affect the applicability of Section 68-F (1-C). The court reasoned that the Corporation's vehicles were completing their journey on the notified routes while plying on the larger routes, and that the Corporation had obtained permits under Section 68-F (1-A) for plying its vehicles on the notified routes. 3. The court held that the petitioner, as an existing operator on the notified route, had the locus standi to challenge the respondents' permits. The court reasoned that the petitioner was aggrieved by the grant of permits to the respondents in violation of Section 68-F (1-A) or (1-C) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the orders upholding the respondents' right to ply their vehicles on the notified route, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner holds a permanent stage carriage permit for plying his vehicle on moradabad-Kashipur-Ramnagar route. He has challenged the order of the State Transport authority, dated May 2, 1978, granting stage carriage permits to respondents Nos. 4 to 20 on the said route and also the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated April 16, 1979 dismissing the petitioners revision and upholding the order of the State Transport Authority granting permits to the respondents.
( 2 ) THE State Transport Undertaking of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification on 22-2-1968 proposing a scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the exclusive operation of its vehicles on the routes (1)Moradabad-Kashipur-Ramnagar via Thakurdwara. (2) Moradabad-Dilari via Kashipur and doraha, (3) Moradabad-Tanda-Darhyal-Kashipur and (4) Moradabad-Tanda darhyal-Kashipur-Ramnagar. By another notification published under Section 68-C proposing a scheme for notifying the route Nagina-Kashipur via Afzalgarh-Jaspur for the exclusive operation of the vehicles of the State Transport Undertaking. These are interregional routes and as such the state Transport Authority had taken these routes under its control. The scheme proposed under the aforesaid notification have not been finalised as yet. In February and May, 1977 the State transport Authority granted temporary permits to respondents Nos. 4 to 20 for plying their mini buses on the aforesaid routes under Section 68-F (1-C) of the Act as the State Road Transport corporation had not made any application by that time for the grant of temporary permit to it. Subsequently, the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the corporation, made application for grant for temporary permits on the said routes. The State transport Authority, by its order dated 20-1-1978, granted temporary permits to the Corporation on the routes in respect of which notifications under Section 68-C had been issued. The corporation, however, surrendered these permits on 26-2-1978 and made fresh applications before the State Transport Authority for the grant of temporary permits to it on the routes (1)Ramnagar-Delhi via Kashipur-Moradabad. Garh-Hapur, (2) Jaspur-Delhi via kashipur-Moradabad (3) Ram-nagar-Meerut via Kashipur-Moradabad and (4) Jaspur-Meerut via kashipur-Moradabad. On March 9, 1978, the State Transport Authority granted permits to the corporation for the said routes. Thereafter respondents Nos. 4 to 20 were directed to stop plying their vehicles on the routes in respect of which temporary permits had been issued to them. The respondents thereupon approached the State Transport Authority and urged that even though permits had been granted to the Corporation, they were entitled to ply on the routes in question in pursuance of the permits granted to them earlier. The State Transport Authority by its order dated 2-5-1978 upheld the respondents contention and directed that the respondents shall be permitted to ply on the routes in respect of which temporary permits had been granted to them earlier. The petitioner thereupon filed a revision under Section 65-A before the State Transport appellate Tribunal against the order of the State Transport Authority, dated May 2, 1978. The petitioner contended that since permits had been issued to the Corporation under Section 68-F (1-A) of the Act, the temporary permits granted to the respondent under Section 68-F (1-C)ceased to be effective and they were not entitled to ply their vehicles on the routes in question. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated April 16, 1979, dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the State Transport Authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid two orders.
( 3 ) CHAPTER IV-A of the Act contains special provisions relating to creation of monopoly
