ANNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., SALEMversusSAFE SERVICE LTD. AND OTHERS

A        ANNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., SALEM
                                       v.
                  SAFE SERVICE LTD. AND 01HERS

                              AlJ{}lJST 22, 1991

8    [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

         Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sections 68F( 1-D) Proviso, 68C, 68-
    D(3), and 134(1-A)-Pamit-Grant of-Draft scheme u/s. 68C
    pending-Effect of-Continuing permits--,-Renewal of.

C         In Civil Appeal No_ 937 of 1980 the Regional Tra0sport Autho-               "'-
    rity, out of two permits, granted oue permit on the route Salem to         ·1--
    Poolambadi to the appellant-State Transport Undertakillg and the
    other to the rrrst respondent.

         In Civil Appeal No. 938 of 1980 there was only one permit for the
D   route Salem to Pallipatti, which was granted to the State Transport
    Undertaking, denying the second respondent.

          In Civil Appeal No. 939 of 1980, on the route Salem to Poolam-               •
    badi, out of two permits, one permit was granted to the State Transport
    Undertaking and the other to another private operator, denying the          ~
E   permit to the respondent therein.

          In Civil Appeal No. 940 of 1980, on the-foute Salem to Erode, the
    objection of the State Transport Undertaking on the renewal sought by
    the respondent was sustained and the permit was granted to the State
    Transport Undertaking.
F
          In Civil Appeal No. 941 of 1980, on the route Salem to T'll"D-
    changode, the renewal application of the respondent was declined on
    objection by the State Transport Undertaking, who in turn, on its appli-
                                                                                      '-
    cation, was granted the per~t.

G       All the aggrieved parties preferred appeals before the State
  Transport Appellate Tribunal, whkh dismissed the appeals, holding
  that since a draft scheme under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act,        ~
  1939 had been published by the State Government and was under con-
  sideration at the time when the matter was pending in appeal, sub-
  section (1-D) of Section 68··F of the Act stood in the way for any relief
H being granted to the private operators.

                                      708
                  ANNA TRANSPORT .-. SAFE SERVICE                    709

     The High Court allowing the revision preferred by the private A
operators, upset the orders of the Appellate Authority; directing the
Regional Transport Authority to re-consider the matters ou merit
against which the State Transport Undertaking approached this Court
by Special Leave.
                                                                            B
      The appellants-the private operators in C.A. Nos. 940-941of1980
contended that Section 68(F)(l-D), proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 was applicable to their cases on the strength of orders in terms of
Section,1340-AY, as valid permits were continuing and were capable of
being renewed for a limited period, so as to cease being effective on the
publication of the final scheme under section 68D(3).
                                                                            c
     Allowing C.A. Nos. 937-939 of 1980 unqualifiedly aud C.A. Nos.
940-941of1980 qualifiedly, this Court,

      HELD I. To the cases of non-grant of permits to the aggrieved
private operators, .sub-section (l-D) of Section· 68F of the Act was D
clearly attracted. No permit could be granted on their asking in the
presence of tbe draft scheme. And when none could be granted the
exercise of-consideration of the claim of the private operators on merit,
was itself a futility. When the Jaw forbade the grant of a permit, merits
of grant stood nowhere. f7ll F-G I

      2. The private operators in C.A. Nos. 940-941 of 1980 were func-      E
tioning and had sought renewal of their existing permits on the routes in
question and, on denial of the same, and corresponding grant thereof to
the State Transport Undertaking, grievance arose to those private
operators to take the matter in appeal. Their cases fall within the pro-
viso to sub-section (1-D) to Section 68F of the Act. Their permits were
capable of being renewed for a limited period provided they had             F
expired after the publication of the draft scheme under Section 68C of
the Ad. f712B-C]

      3. Even though the two appeals in C.A. Nos. 940-941of1980 shall
also meet the same fate as that of C.A. Nos. 937-939 of 1980, they shall G
remain subjected to an alternate that in the event of orders under
sub-section (I-A) of Section 134 being existent, the Appellate Authority
shall examine the question and pass such orders in relation to the appe- ·
als of these private operators in accordance with law; but in case there
were no such orders earlier, the view of the Appellate Authority dismis-
sing the appeals shall stand affirmed. [712G-713A]
                                                                            H
    710                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (1991] 3 S.C.R.

        K. A. Natarajan ·v. M. Naina Mohammed & Anr., AIR. 1978
A
    Madras 280, referred to.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Aprea! Nos. 93?°-
    941of1980.

B        From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.1980 of the Madras
    High Court 'in C.R.P. Nos. 934/78, 602/77, 110/78 and 111/78 and
    dated 29.2.1980 in C.R.P. No. 601of1977.

          A.V. Rangam for the Appellant.

          S. Srinivasan for the Respondents.
c
          The following Order of the Court was delivered:

         These are five ,Civil Appeals by Special Leave against identical
    orders of a learned slngle Judge of the Madras High Court.
D
          In relation to Civil Appeal No. 937 of 1980 the Regional Trans-·
    port Authority, out of two permits, granted 9ne permit on the route
    Salem to Poolambadi to the appellant State Transport Undertaking
    and the other to the first respondent, Safe Service Ltd. In Civil Appeal
    No. 938 of 1980 there was only one permit for the route Salem to
E   Pallipatti which was granted to the State Transport Undertaking. In
    other words, it was denied to the second respondent, R.P. David. In
    Civil Appeal No. 939 of 1980, on the route Salem to Poolambadi, out
    of two permits, one permit was granted to the State Transport Under-
    taking and the other to another private operator, Suganeswara Motor
    Service denying the permit to R.P. David-respondent herein. In Civil
F   Appeal No. 940 of 1980, on the route Salem to Erode, the objection of
    the State Transport Undertaking on the renewal sought by Parsura:
    man Pillai-respondent was sustained and the permit was granted to the
    State Transport Undertaking, leaving the private operator aggrieved.
    In Civil Appeal No. 941of1980, on the route Salem to Tiruchangode,
    the renewal application of K. Ramaswamy-respondent operator was
G   declined on objection by the State Transport Undertaking, who in
    turn, on its application, was granted the permit leaving the private
    operator K. Ramaswamy-respondent aggrieved. All the aggrieved
    parties preferred appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tri-
    bunal. The Tribunal identically in all these cases took the view that
    since a draft scheme under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act,
H   1939 had been published by the State Government and was under
                               ANNA TRANSPORT v. SAFE SERVICE                     711

             consideration at the time when the matter was pending in appeal,
                                                                                         A
             sub-section 1-D of Section 68-F of the Act stood in the way for any
             relief being granted to the private operators and thus dismissed the
             appeals. That provision forbids permits being granted or renewed dur-
..._,,,.'    ing the period intervening between the date of publication of any draft
      '
             scheme under Section 68-C of the Act, and the date of publication of
             the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person, or for any        B.
             class of road transport service, in relation to an f_lrea, or route, or
             portion thereof, covered by such scheme. However, the proviso
             thereto permits that where the period of operation of a permit in
             relation to any area, route or portion thereof specified in the scheme
             published under Section 68-C expires after such publication, such
             permit may be renewed for a limited period, but the permit so renewed
             shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under
                                                                                         c
             sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act.


                   As is evident, the Appellate Authority applied sub-secllon 1-D
             of Section 68F to all the five cases and not the proviso. The High Court
                                                                                         D
             on revision preferred by the private operators upset the orders of the
             Appellate Authority directing the Regional Transport Authority to
             re-consider the matter on merit. While doing so it relied on a judgment
             of the Madras High Court in K.A. Natarajan v. M. Naina Mohammed
             & Anr., AIR 1978 Madras 280 to the effect that appeal before the
             Appellate Authority was maintainable even though a draft scheme
             within the terms of Section 68C of the Act had appeared on the scene.       E
             The State Transport Undertaking being aggrieved is before us by
             Special Leave.


                    We have heard learned counsel on both sides. So far as Civil
              Appeal Nos. 937-939/80 are concerned, these are cases of non grant of      F
              permits to the aggrieved private operators. To their cases sub-section
              ( 1-D) of Section 68F of the Act was clearly attracted. No permit could
              be granted on their asking in the presence of the draft scheme. And
              when none could be granted the exercise of consideration of the claim
              of the aggrieved private operators on merit, was itself a futility. When
              the law forbade the grant of a permit in the aforesaid duration, merits    G
              of grant stood nowhere. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to
              take the view that the High Court was in error in accepting the related
              revision petitions of the private operators and remitting their cases to
            · the Appellate Authority for reconsideration on merits. And as a con-
              sequence it was further in error in ordering that till such orders were
              passed by the Appellate Authority, both the State Transport Under-         H
    712                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             {1991] 3 S.C.R.

    taking and private operators could be allowed to run, in view of the
A   facts which glare out on the record.

          So far as Civil Appeal Nos. 940-941 of 1980 are concerned, tqe
    respective private operators were functioning and had sought renewal
    of their existing permits on the routes in question and, on denial of the
B   same, and corresponding grant thereof to the State Transport Under-
    taking, grievance arose to those private operators to take the matter in
    appeal. Theirs were cases which.could perhaps fall within the proviso
    to sub-section ( 1-D) to Section 68F of the Act. Their permits were
    capable of being renewed for a limited period provided they had
    expired after the publication of the draft scheme under Section 68C of
C   the Act. The controverted plea of the State Undertaking however is
    categoric that the renewal application was rejected on 30th August,
    1974 in one c·ase and on 19th October, 1974 in the other, and on such
    rejection both the permits were granted to the State Transport Under-
    taking, and when the matter was in appeal before the Appellate Tri-
    bunal, the draft scheme was, much later, published on 4.6.1976.
D

         Mr. S. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the private
  operators in Civil Appeal Nos. 940-941of1980 contends that when an
  appeal was taken to the Appellate Authority, the provisions of sub-
  section (1-A) of Section 134 of the Act were invoked and orders were
E obtained, notwithstanding the expiration of the term of the permit, so
  as to continue the permit to be valid until the appeals before the
  Appellate Authority were disposed of. On that basis it is contended
  that the proviso to sub-section (1-D) of Section 68F of the Act comes
  to his rescue, on the strength of orders in terms of sub-section (1-A) of
  Section 134 of the Act, as valid permits were continuing and were
F capable of being renewed for a limited period, so as to cease being
  effective on the publication of the final scheme under sub-section (3)
  of Section 680 of the Act. It may not require examining the contention
  because it is fractionally factual. The necessary factual data has not
  been placed before us in the form of a counter or the suggestive orders
  as such. We are thus left in the dark. Still, lest we cause any injustice to
G Mr. S. Srinivasan's clients, we are goaded to take the view that even
  though these two appeals shall also meet the same fate as that of Civil
  Appeal Nos. 937-939 of 1980 they shall remain subjected to an al-
  ternate that in the event of orders under sub-section (1-A) of Section
  134 being existent, the Appellate Authority shall examine the question
  and pass such orders in relation to the appeals of these private
H operators in accordance with law; but in case there were no such
                        ANNA TRANSPORT v. SAFE SERVICE                     713

       orders earlier, the view of the Appellate Authority dismissing the        A
       appeals shall stand affirmed.

               In view of what has been said above, we allow Civil Appeal Nos.
        937-939 of 1980 unqualifiedly and Civil Appeal Nos. 940-941 of 1980
       .qualifiedly in the terms above stated. Parties shall bear their own costs B
        in all these appeals.

       V.P.R.                                                Appeals allowed .




..,.