BISHAMBHAR DAYAL, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against an order of the Regional Transport Authority refusing to grant temporary permits to the petitioner. The relevant facts are that Scheme No. 60 was sanctioned and published in December, 1965, and it came into operation from 19th March 1966. Among other routes, the one route which is now in dispute is from Jagdalpur to Bailadilla. A portion of this route from Gedam to Bailadilla was to be of conjoint operation with other while the routes from Jagdalpur to bhopalpattnam and Jagdalpur to Sukmakotma were routes of exclusive operation by the Corporation. In paragraph 10 of this scheme there was a provision as follows:--"facilities of extra buses to clear extra traffic on the route during peak season or during fairs and festivals will be provided to avoid any inconvenience to the travelling public. " on the strength of this provision in the Scheme the Corporation made an application on 22nd May 1968 for the grant of temporary permits under Section 68-F (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Regional Transport Authority did not consider that there was any temporary need existing and, therefore, passed an order rejecting the application on that ground.

( 2 ) THE contention of the Corporation is that the transport authority had no jurisdiction to enter into the question of the existence or non-existence of the necessity for the grant of a temporary permit and since the applications had been made according to law, the Regional Transport Authority was bound to issue the permits as prayed. For this proposition learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Abdul Gafoor v. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 1556. It was observed in that case by their Lordships at page 1558, col. 1, as follows:--

"under Section 68f (1) as already mentioned the Regional Transport authority has no option to refuse the grant of the permit provided it has been made in pursuance of the approved scheme and in the manner mentioned in Chapter IV. The duty of the Regional Transport Authority on receipt of the application from the State Transport Undertaking for a permit is therefore to examine the application for itself to see whether it is in pursuance of an approved scheme and secondly whether it has been made in the manner laid down in Chapter IV. "

It is, therefore, correct that if the application is found to be in pursuance of an approved scheme and has been made according to Chapter IV, then the Regional transport Authority is merely to act in a ministerial capacity and to issue the required permit. But then the question is whether in this case the applications were in pursuance of the approved scheme. For this, as already stated, learned counsel relied upon the provision quoted above from paragraph 10 of the Scheme. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has contended that the provision in the Scheme is contrary to the provisions of Section 68-E and is, therefore, wholly ineffective. Reliance is placed on the observations of their Lordships of the supreme Court in Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh S. R. T. Corporation, AIR 1961 SC 82. In that case their Lordships were considering a scheme which contained a note according to Rule 5 of the Rules framed by the State Government. The note was as follows:-" the frequency of services on any of the notified routes or within any notified area shall, if necessary, be variedhaving regard to the traffic needs during any period. " in considering this note their Lordships posed the following question:-"the short question that arises is whether the variation of frequency of service by the State Transport undertaking amounts to a modification of a scheme within the meaning of Section 68-E of the Act. "

After considering in detail the implications of such a provision, their Lordships came to the following conclusion:"we are, therefore, definitely of opinion that the rule confers power on the State Transport Undertaking t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document