A transport permit ceases to exist upon the publication of an alternate scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act, regardless of physical possession.

1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant. Brij Bahadur Lal, held a regular stage carriage permit on Panari - Sitapur route which was to expire on May 28, 1970. Before that date, however, a scheme was published by the State Transport Undertaking under S.68 - C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for nationalising that route. The appellant applied for renewal of his permit on November 17, 1969 and the Regional Transport Authority by its resolution dated April 24, 1970 renewed the permit for three years with effect from May 29, 1970. The scheme published under S.68 - C of the Act as aforesaid was approved and the said scheme as approved was published on August 29, 1970 as required by S.68 - D (3) of the Act. On the scheme being so published the Regional Transport Authority cancelled the appellant's permit on September 12, 1970 and subsequently granted him a compensatory permit vide its resolution dated January 10/11, 1972 on Jhansi - Mahoba route. On this route. Noor Mohammad, respondent No. 3 held a temporary permit which was due to expire on May 31, 1972. He had also applied for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on this route which was pending on January 10/11, 1972, the date on which the appellant was granted a compensatory permit on this route. The said Noor Mohammad filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant of the compensatory permit to the appellant. The Tribunal allowed the revision of Noor Mohammad on June 2, 1972, and quashed the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated January 10/11, 1972 aforesaid. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Aggrieved Brij Bahadur Lal has filed this Special Appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has made three submissions: -
(1) That the permit issued under the Act is a physical document and has to be actually cancelled notwithstanding that it ceased to be effective within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (1 - D) of S.68 - F of the Act and that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the appellant's permit having ceased to be effective under the proviso to sub-section (1 - D) of S.68 - F did not require any cancellation and that consequently the appellant was not entitled to a compensatory permit under S.68 - G since that section applied only where a permit had been cancelled or modified under sub-section (1 - D) (2) of S.68 - F;
(2) That sub-section (2) of S.68 - G was independent of sub-section (1) of the said section and a compensatory permit could be granted to the appellant under sub-section (2); and
(3) That the provision contained in S.68 - G for the grant of a compensatory permit only to those whose permit had been cancelled or modified under S.68 - F (1 - D) (2) of the Act was hit by Art.14 of the Constitution of India in so far as it excluded the benefit of a compensatory permit to a person who held a renewed permit under the proviso to sub-section (1 - D) of S.68 - F.

3. Dealing with the first submission it is to be noted that sub-section (1 - D) of S.68 - F lays down that save as otherwise provided under sub-section (1 - A) or sub-section (1 - C), no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication, under S.68 - C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person for any class of road transport service in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by such sche