TMT. T.P.K. THILAGAVATHYversusTHE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

A                             TMT. T.P.K. THILAGAVATHY
                                             v.
          THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

                                 NOVEMBER29, 1994

B         [A.M. AHMADI, C.J., R.M. SAHAI AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

         Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992-
    Provisions prohibiting grant ofany permit overlapping whole or part of the
    notified route after 30. 6. 90 held valid.

C         S.10-1nterpretation of-Held-Could not be interpreted to enable
    grant of permits even after 30.6.90 upto the date of publication of the Act
    i.e. 31. 7.92. Grant ofpermit after 30.6.90-Legality of-Such permits even
    though granted on consent memo, held, rightly quashed by the High Court.

         Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Prohibition of grant of any
D   permit overlapping whole or part of notified route after 30th June 1990-
    Creating two classes among small operators-Cut off date-Held, not
    violative of.

         The appellants, private stage carriage operators to whom permits
     had been granted between 1976 and 1990 for plying either on intra or
E    inter state routes, were excluded from operating on any part of the
     nationalised routes after the addition of chapter IV-A in the Motor
    Vehicles Act, 1936; Chapter IV-A framed various schemes in 1976
    nationalising different routes. But State Transport Authority issued
    new permits and renewed existing ones for bifurcated and traversed
    part of the notified route. State Undertaking challenged this action of
F   STA before the High Court and the permits which overlapped even a
    portion of nationalised routes were declared invalid. This decision was
    challenged in this court by Pandiayan Roadways* and the decision of
    High Court was upheld and permits granted for such routes were held
    invalid. This rendered approximately 4000 permits invalid. To meet
    this situation State issued Government Order No. 2222 of 87 and
G
    introduced a legislative bill for renewal of permits of such holders, but
    the bill was not passed. In the meantime Motor Vehicles Act 1936 was
    repealed by Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988) in which

    •   Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Thiru MA. Egappan, AIR (1987) SC 958
H       = {1987) 2 SCR 391.

                                       180
              T.P.K. THILAGAVATHYv. REGNL. TPT. AUTH.             181

Chapter VI contained similar provisions of Chapter IV-A of old Act. A
The new Act came into force on 1st July, 1989 and it permitted pending
schemes to be published and approved within one year i.e. on or before
30th June 1990, on expiry of which it was to lapse. Government in the
wake of interpretation placed by this Court in Pandiyan Roadways,
issued G.O. No. 1794 and 1990 withdrawing its earlier order of 87, and
an ordinance repealing the legislative assembly bill.                  B

     The writ petition, which was filed by the small operators against  =-
this was dismissed by the court and Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle (Special
provisions) Repeal Act, 1991 was passed repealing the Legislative
Assembly Bill. The Operators approached this Court in which an
interim order was passed. The State Legislature enacted the impugned C
Act which came into force on 31st July, 1992. The Act placed complete
embargo on issue of fresh permits after 30th June, 1990 as it provided
that sections 1 to 5 and 8 to 11 were deemed to have come into force on
4th June, 1976 and ceased to be in force on 30th June, 1990.

    Its validity was challenged as violative of Article 14 for creating
                                                                        D
two classes among small operators - one, those to whom permits had
been granted on or before 30th June, 1990 and others to whom permits
were issued after 30th June, 1990, by taking 30th June, 1990 as cut-off
date which was arbitrary and against legislative objective and purpose.
High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that the cut-off date E
was rational and prohibition in the Act against grant of any new permit
was valid. Hence, these appeals.

    Dismissing the appeals, this Court

     HELD : 1.1. From the statement of objects and reasons and the F
provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that the Legislature
intended, in public interest, to remove the sudden hardship to common
public due to decision rendered by this Court in Pandiyan Roadways.
But the State Legislature having accepted the interpretation placed by
this Court in Pandiyan Roadways, except for those to whom permits
were granted earlier, the appellants cannot claim to be treated G
similarly and placed in that class of operators who were granted
permits before 1st July, 1990. The State Legislature, in keeping with
the decision given by this Court that such a scheme as was in dispute,
was for complete exclusion of Private Operators, rightly provided, that
no permit could have been granted after the schemes were granted H
     182                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A    approval. under the new Act. Therefore, the cut-off date was not
     violative of Article 14. [186 C to E]

           1.2. Section 10 of the Act, is not happily worded. Literally read it
      may clash with sub-section (4) of section 6. A superficial reading of
      section 10 does give an impression that the· operation of the Act for
B purpose of grant of permit stood extended not only upto 30th June,
      1990 but upto 31st July, 1992. But this would be in teeth of sub-section
.,.   (4) of section 6 and section 3 itself. The purport of the Act was to
      protect those operators who had been issued permits between 1976 and
      30th June, 1990 and not to depart from the interpretation placed by
      this court. The legislature while protecting the past mistakes of the
C Government has taken care not to repeat it in future. This is not
      discrimination but accepting the decision given by this court. Further it
      is a validating provision. In absence of it the action of the authorities
      granting permits which was legislatively made permissible by sections 3
      and 4 would not have been saved. It too ceased to operate from 30th
    . June, 1990 in view ofsub-section (3) of Section 1. [191 A to C]
D
         1.3. A provision which was legislatively dead on 30th June, 1990
    could not be deemed to be alive for purpose of grant of permit because
    of the expression 'the date of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu
    Government Gazette' appearing in the provision. The High Court thus
    did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition of those
E   operators whose claim for new permit after 30th June, 1990 was
    rejected by the authorities. (191 E]

        Mis Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Another v. State of U.P. and
    Others, AIR (1986) SC 319; Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd v.
    Thiru MA. Egappan, AIR (1987) SC 958 = (1987] 2 SCR 391 and S. V.
F   Sivaswami Servai v. Hafez Motor Transport (firm) and Ors., [1990) 4 SCC
    459, relied on.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 540-42/94
    Etc. Etc.

G      Against the Judgment and Order·dated 30-4-93 jn W.P. Nos. 17570,
    19798/92 and 2200/93 of the High Court of Madras.

        V. Subramaniam, K.K.Venugopal, C.S. Vaidyanathan, R. Mohan, R.
    Nedurnaran, V.G. Pragasam, S. Srinivasan, Ramalingam, V.T. Gopalan,
    A.T.M. Sampath, P.P. Tripathi, Vineet Kumar, P.R. Seetharaman, A.
H   Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur and M. Palani for the appearing parties.
       T.P.K. THILAGAVATHY v. REGNL. TPT. AUTH. [R.M. SAHA!, J.] 183

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                  A
     R. M. SAHAI, J. What arises for consideration in these, appeals
directed against judgment and order of the High Court of Madras is whether
the provision of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act,
1992 (Act No. 41 of 1992) (hereinafter called 'the Act') prohibiting grant
of any permit overlapping whole or part of the notified route after 30th B
June, 1990 is invalid and ultra vires being violative of Article 14 for
creating two classes among small operators by arbitrarily providing cut-off
date and what is the ambit and scope of Section 10 and whether the
decision of this Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd v. Thiru M
A. Egappan AIR (1987) SC 958 = [1987] 2 SCR 391 requires
reconsideration.                                                            C
     In the State of Tamil Nadu the State Government after addition of
Chapter IV-A in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 framed various schemes in
1976 nationalising different routes. The effect of publication of the draft
scheme was that the private stage carriage operators were excluded from
operating on any part ofit. But on various routes there were bifurcations;      D
and the State Transport Authorities issued new permits and renewed
existing permits for these routes which in course of its journey traversed
part of the notified route, under the impression that exclusion of private
operators under the Scheme was partial only. It was challenged by S-tate
Transport Undertaking (in brief 'the Undertaking') and its claim was
upheld and such permits which overlapped even a portion of the                  E
nationalised route were declared invalid. One of such permit-holders who
was an operator on a non-notified route, while getting its permit renewed,
got permission to ply on a route part of which overlapped notified route,
approached this Court and in Pandiyan Roadways (supra) the decision of
the High Court was upheld and it was held that in view of the decision
given by the Constitution Bench in Mis. Adarsh Travels Bus Service and          F
Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR (1986) SC 319 the permits granted by
the State to state carriage operators which overlapped any part of the
notified route were invalid. The Court held that only those operators were
entitled to ply on part of notified routes who were permitted to do so by the
scheme itself. The effect of this decision was that large number of permits     G
of private operators, nearly 4000, were rendered invalid. To meet this
extraordinary situation, when 4000 vehicles run by small operators (each
having not less than 5 permits) were in danger of going off the road, which
was oppressive not only to the operators but it exposed the public to great
hardship and inconvenience and made it well-nigh impossible either for the
State or the Undertaking to replace the vehicles which involved an              H
    184                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A   expenditure of nearly Rs. 300 crores, the State issued Government Order
    No. 2222 in 1987 to the authorities to renew permits of such operators and
    requested the Undertaking not to oppose it. It also introduced a Bill (L.A.
    Bill No. 42 of 1987), the object of which was to 'grant permits to small
    operators ........to ply their stage carriage on any portion of the area or route
    covered by the draft schemes or the approved schemes.' The Bill was
B   assented to by the President, as well, but it was not published, consequently
    it never came into force. In the meantime the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was
    repealed by the Parliament and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of
     1988) came into force from 1st July 1989. It permitted pending schemes to
    be published and approved within one year after expiry of which it was to
     lapse. The schemes, therefore, had to be approved on or before 30th June
c    1990. In the State lbere were 800 schemes which had been published and
    were pending approval. Out of these 251 schemes were approved between
    22nd and 30th June 1990. Chapter VI of the new Act contains similar
    provisions as were in Chapter IV-A of the repealed Act. The effect of
    approval of the schemes under the new Act and the interpretation placed by
    this Court in Pandiyan Roadways (supra) was that no private operator could
D   ply on part of notified route and the Government Order No. 2222 of 1987
    had to be withdrawn. The Government, therefore, issued Government Order
    No. 1794 in August 1990 withdrawing the earlier order issued in July 1987
    in w.ake of the judgment in Pandiyan Roadways (supra). It was followed by
    an Ordinance issued on 8th October 1990 repealing L.A. Bill No. 42 of
     1987. The small operators, thus, once again were faced with the difficulty
E   in which their vehicles were likely to become stationary. They, therefore,
    filed different batch of writ petitions seeking by one, mandamus from the
    Court to direct the State to publish the L.A. Bill No. 42 of 1987 and by
    other, challenged validity of the Government Order issued in 1990
    withdrawing earlier Government Order of 1987. The petitions were
    dismissed on 9th October 1990. On 24th January 1991 Tamil Nadu Motor
F   Vehicles (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 1991 was passed repealing L.A.
    Bill No. 42 of 1987. The operators numbering approximately 4000 who had
    been granted permits overlapping notified route after 1976 approached this
    Court through their association known as Federation of Operators'
    Association by way of two Writ Petitions Nos. 361 and 365of1991 under
    Article 32 of the Constitution of India for different relief with same
G
    objective in which an interim order was passed and doubt was expressed on
    Pandiyan Roadways. The State Legislature, in these circumstance, enacted
    the impugned Act which came into force on 31st July 1992.

        Due to the uncertainty prevailing in the State as a result of different
H   orders issued by the Government from time to time, the transport
       T.P.K. THILAGAVATHYv. REGNL. TPT. AUTH. [R.M. SAHAI, J.] 185

authorities appear to have issued permits to private operators even after        A
1987. But when the Act came into force in July 1992 with eleven sections it
provided that Sections 1 to 5 and 8 to 11 were deemed to have come into
force on 4th June 1976 and ceased to be in force on 30th June 1990. The
Act placed complete embargo on issue of fresh permits after 30th June,
1990. Therefore, its validity was challenged by those operators who had
been issued permits after 30th June, 1990. The principal attack was founded      B
on absence of any justification for classifying the operators in two classes -
one, those to whom permits had been granted till 30th June, 1990 and
others, to whom permits were issued after that date. It was claimed that the
basic purpose of the enactment being to protect the interests of small
operators, the classification amongst them by taking 30th June 1990 as cut-      C
off date was arbitrary and against legislative objective and purpose. The
prohibition in the Act against grant of any new permit was challenged as it
was contrary to the policy pursued by State Government from 1976
onwards and it was claimed that the very purpose of the Act by which the
Legislature intended to perpetuate its earlier policy of permitting small
operators to ply on overlapping notified routes would stand frustrated.          D
Validity of Section 7 abating the proceeding for grant of permit was also
assailed. The High Court did not find any merit in any of the submissions.
It was held that the cut-off date as 30th June, 1990 was rational as the
Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, having been repealed and the new Act having
come into force from 1st July, 1989 with a provision that the schemes            E
pending on the date when the Act came into force would be valid only for
one year, namely, upto 30th June, 1990 unless they were approved and
published, the State Legislature, keeping the provisions of the Central
enactment in view, considered it appropriate to fix the cut-off date from the
date the time to get the schemes approved, lapsed. The High Court held that
even under the new Act Chapter VI provides for the same scheme as was            F
earlier provided by Chapter IV-A. Therefore, when the Legislature enacted
Act 41 of 1992 it, while protecting those in whose favour permits were
granted before the decision was given in Pandiyan Roadways (supra),
accepted the interpretation placed by this Court by prohibition grant of any
new permit overlapping even part of notified route from 1990 onwards. Nor
did the Court find any merit in the submission that by virtue of Section 10      G
the permits granted even on or after 1st July, 1990 and till the date when the
Act was passed or thereafter were valid. Aggrieved by the decision given
by the High Court on various sets of petitions filed by operators who had
applied and were granted permits on or after 1st July, 1990 both on intra
and inter-State route, these appeals have been filed. The writ petitions, as     H
    186                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A   stated earlier, have been filed by those operators who were granted pennits
    between 1976 and 1990. In fact these petitions have been rendered
    infructuous after enactment of Act No. 41 of 1992.

         Validity of the Act was assailed, but half-heartedly, by the learned
    counsel for the appellants who are the stage carriage operators to whom
B   pennits had been granted for plying either on intra or inter-State routes on
    or after !st July, 1990, obviously: because invalidity of the Act does not
    advance their cause. Even otherwise, from the Statement of Objects and
     Reasons and the provisions in the Act it is clear that the Legislature
    intended, in public interest, to remove the sudden hardship to common
    public due to decision rendered by this Court in Pandiyan Roadways
c   (supra). But State Legislature having accepted the interpretation placed by
    this Court in Pandiyan Roadways (supra), except for those to whom pennits
    were granted earlier, the appellants cannot claim to be treated similarly and
    placed in that class of operators who were granted pennits before 1st July,
     1990. In our opinion the State Legislature, in keeping with the decision
    given by 'this Court that such a scheme as was in dispute was for complete
D   exclusion of private operators, rightly provided that no pennit could have
    been granted after the Scheme was granted approval under the new Act.
    That explains the reasons for cut-off date as the schemes were approved
    under the new Act in June 1990 only. Therefore, on interpretation placed by
    this Court, the authorities could not have granted any pennit which
    overlapped any part of notified route. The cut-off date, therefore, was not
E   violative of Article 14.

          Prior to adverting to various provisions of the Act and whether Section
     I 0 could be so interpreted as empowering the transport authorities to issue
    fresh pennits even after 30th June, 1990 and whether such pennits could be
    held to be valid under Section 10 it appears appropriate to deal with the
F   submission advanced on behalf of the appellants which in effect was that
    the Pandiyan Roadways required re-consideration. It was urged that the
    prmciple laid down by the Constitution Bench in Adarsh Travels (supra)
                                                                                     "
    was not applicable to the schemes framed in the State of Tamil Nadu and,
    therefore, the decision given in Pandiyan Roadways (supra) based on
    Adarsh Travels (supra) was not correct. The learned counsel urged that in
G   Adarsh Travels (supra) a private operator was excluded wholly from
    operating on any part of the notified route as there was no protection even
    to existing operators, whereas in Pandiyan Roadways (supra) the Court was
    concerned with a scheme which excluded a private operator from the
    notified route except to the extent it was pennitted by the scheme itself. The
    learned counsel urged that the schemes framed in the State of Tamil Nadu
H
      T.P.K. THILAGAVATHYv. REGNL. TPT. AUTH. [R.M. SAHAI, J.] 187

excluded private stage carriage operators from operating on 'end-to-end' A
basis only on any nationalised route. It was submitted that the scheme itself
having permitted plying on notified route and even picking and setting
down passenger from notified route, the authorities did not commit any
error in granting permits and such grant was not contrary to the scheme and
if such interpretation is given as was done in Pandiyan Roadways (supra)
then it would result in not only inconvenience to the public but would be B
contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself.

     To appreciate the controversy, it appears appropriate to refer to one of
the routes which was known as 'Udumalpet Erode Route', which came up
for consideration in Pandiyan Ropdways (supra). This Scheme was notified
in 1973. It was published under sub-section (2) of Section 68-D of the          C
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Schedule I to the Scheme reads as under: -

   1. Area or route in relation         Udumaplet to Erode with shuttle
      to which the scheme is            trips between Erode and Tiruppur.
      prepared.
                                                                                D
   2. Whether operation by the          To the exclusion of other persons
      State Transport Undertaking       as described in item 3 below.
      shall be to the exclusion of
      other persons or otherwise.

   3. If the operation shall be to                                              E
      the exclusion of the other
      persons:

   i. Whether such exclusion            To the complete exclusion of other
      shall be complete or partial      persons in respect of permits
                                        covering the entire route               F
                                        referred to in item 1 above.
                                        (Emphasis ours)

   ii. Whether it is proposed                                           Yes.
       to allow other persons to
       operate buses as on sector
                                                                                G
       of the routes covered by
       the scheme.

   iii. Whether it is proposed                                          Yes.
        to allow other persons to
        pick up.or drop passengers
                                                                                H
    188                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A          between any two places on
           the route covered by the scheme.

         Clause (5) of Schedule II gives the number of Stage Carriages. Clauses
    (a) and (b) of it are extracted below:

B     a.   Number of stage carriages now              As detailed in Annexure-1.
           operated by other persons.

      b.   Number of stage carriages to be
           permitted to be operated by other
           persons and the duration .                     - do-
c        Annexure I contains particulars of those private operators who were
    operating on the route on the date the Scheme was notified. The Scheme
    was prepared under Section 68-C of the old Act which permitted a State
    Transport Undertaking to prepare a scheme for running and operating
    services in an area or route to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other
D   persons. Sub-clause (i) of Clause (3) of the Scheme clearly provided that
    the scheme was to complete exclusion of other persons from entire route in
    question. Therefore, no operator could apply for a permit on notified route
    nor the transport authority could grant it. The exclusion was thus absolute
    and complete. Clauses (ii) and (iii) were added in the Scheme to enable
    existing operators to ply their vehicles. Protection to such operator was
E   limited to the extent that their permits were renewable. A combined reading
    of sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause (3) of the Scheme with Annexures
    I and II of the Schedule indicates that the private operators of specific
    category were permitted to operate on sectors of the routes and it were they
    alone who were permitted to pick up and set down passengers between any
F   two places on the route covered by the Scheme. It did not contemplate grant
    of any new permit to any other operator overlapping the notified route.
    Even though it was not a Scheme like the one which came up for                  •
    consideration before this Court in Adarsh Travels (supra), yet the exclusion
    was complete so far operators other than those who were mentioned in sub-
    clauses (ii) and (iii) were concerned. The Scheme having been framed
G   under Section 68-C, the validity of which was not challenged, it could not
    have been construed as a scheme precluding an operator from 'end to end'
    route only. The misconception arising out of an erroneous understanding of
    the Scheme due to sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) was rightly corrected by this
    Court. We respectfully agree with the enunciation of law in Pandiyan
    Roadways (supra).
H
           T.P.K. THILAGA VATHY v. REGNL. TPT. AUTH. [R.M. SARAI, J.] 189

          Reverting to the provision of the Act, it is slightly unusual legislation A
     as it came into force in July 1992 yet, except Sections 6 and 7, the
     remaining provisions of the Act are deemed to have come into force in
      1976 and ceased to operate after 30th June 1990. The Act thus seeks to
     achieve dual objective. - one, legislatively protecting those operators who
     were granted permits after 1976 under misconception by the transport
     authorities that the Scheme excluded other operators from 'end-to-end' B
     route only by fictionally enabling the transport authority to have issued
     permits notwithstanding any provision in the Scheme framed by the
     Undertaking. Two, it prohibited grant of any new permit after 30th June,
     1990 which overlapped whole or part of notified route, that is, the
     Legislature while accepting the interpretation placed by this Court on C
     construction of Scheme prepared under Section 68-C legislatively removed
     the hurdle in grant of permits on notified route in past, validated the grant
     so made but prohibited any grant in future. Sections 3, 4, 5 and 10 are
     directed towards regularising and validating the permits granted between
     1976 and 30th June, 1990, whereas Sections 6 and 7 achieve the latter
     objective. Section 3 is the main Section. Its sub-sections (1) and (2) D
     empower a Regional Transport Authority to grant, renew or vary conditions
    of permit of a small operator, which, according to the Explanation to the
    Section, means and stage carriage operator holding not more than five stage
    carriage permits, to ply on a notified route or part of it notwithstanding
    anything contained in any draft scheme. Sub-section (3) of Section 3
    provides that during the period the permit referred to under sub-sections (1) E
    or (2) was in force the draft scheme shall stand modified to that extent. Sub-
    section (4) makes the provisions of Chapter V of the Act applicable to
    grant, renewal or variation of permit. Section 5 provides that Sections 3, 4
    and 6 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith

-   contained in Chapters V and VI including Section 98 of the Motor Vehicles
    Act. Section 10 validates the grant of permit retrospectively. Section 3 thus F
    created power in the transport authority to grant, renew, vary or alter permit
    from 1976 and Section 10 validated such grant notwithstanding anything to
    the contrary in the new Act. There was no challenge by the State Transport
    Undertaking to these provisions by which the grant of permits in favour of
    the operators between 1976 and 1990 has been permitted and validated.           G

         Section 6 like Section 3 has four sub-sections. Sub-sections (1) to (3)
    deal with renewal of permit or modification of condition therein in
    accordance with same procedure as applied to renewal or variation under
    Chapter V of the Act. But sub-section (4) debars the authority from issuing
    any fresh permit. It reads as under:                                         H
    190                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A                  "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act no new
                   pennit shall be granted under this Act to any person on any
                   route covered by an approved scheme."

         This Section unlike other Sections came in operation from 30th June
    1990. Thus from 30th June 1990 the Regional Transport Authority is not
B   empowered to grant any new pennit to any operator overlapping whole or
    part of notified route. But so far pennits, grant of which has been validated
    by 30th June, 1990, would be renewable under this Section even after 30th
    June, 1990. The effect of Section 6, therefore, is that those operators who
    were granted pennits between 1976 to 30th June, 1990 would be entitled to
    seek renewal but the authorities would not be entitled to grant fresh pennit
C   after that date. Validity of even sub-sections (1) and (2) was not challenged
    by the Undertaking. And sub-section (4) cannot be challenged by the
    appellants as it is in keeping with Chapter VI of the new Act. It is further
    reinforced by Section 7 which abates all proceedings pending for grant of
    pennit on a notified route before any authority or court in appeal.

D         But what has created confusion is Section 10 which reads as under :-

                   "S. 10. Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter V or
                   VI including Section 98 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 all
                   orders passed granting pennits or renewal or transfer of such
                   pennits or any variation, modification, extension or
E                  curtailment of the route or routes specified in a stage carriage
                   pennit during the period commencing on the 4th day of June,
                   1976 and ending with the date of the publication of this Act
                   in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall for all purposes
                   be deemed to be and to have always been taken or passed in
                   accordance with the provisions of this Act as if this Act had
F                  been in force at all material times."

                                                             (Emphasis supplied)

         The Section is not happily worded. Literally read it may clash with
    sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the
G   expression 'and ending with the date of the publication of this Act in the
    Tamil Nadu Government Gazette'. It was urged that this clearly indicated
    that any pennit granted between 4th June, 1976 and the date of publication
    of the Act, namely, 31st July, 1992, would be valid. According to the
    learned counsel the High Court committed an error of law in dismissing the
    writ petition filed by the appellants on basis that their pennits having been
H   granted or counter-signed after 30th June, 1990 were invalid and contrary
           T.P.K. THILAGAVATHYv. REGNL. TPT.AUTH. [R.M. SAHAI,J.] 191

     to the Scheme of the Act. A superficial reading of Section 10 does give an A
     impression that the operation of the Act for purposes of grant of permit
     stood extended not ohly upto 30th June, 1990 but upto 3 lst July, 1992. But
     that would be in teeth of sub-section (4) of Section 6 and Section 3 itself.
     The purport of the Act was to protect those operators who had been issued
     permits between 1976 and 30th June 1990, and not to depart from the
     interpretation placed by this Court. The Legislature while protecting the B
..   past mistakes of the Government has taken care not to repeat it in future .
     This is not discrimination but accepting the decision given by this Court.
     Further it is a validating provision. In absence of it the action of the
     authorities granting permits which was legislatively made permissible by
     Sections 3 and 4 would not have been saved. It too ceased to operate from
     30th June, 1990 in view of sub-section (3) of Section I which reads as C
     under:-                     ·

                  "The provisions of the Act (except sections 6 and 7) be
                  deemed to have come into force on the 4th June, 1976 and
                  remain in force upto and inclusive of the 30th June, 1990 and
                  section 6 shall be deemed to have come into force on the lst D
                  July, 1990."

         A provision which was legislatively dead on 30th June, 1990 could not
     be deemed to be alive for purpose of grant of permit because of the
     expression 'the date of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu
     Government Gazette' appearing in the provision. The High Court thus did E
     not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition of those operators
     whose claim for new permit after 30th June, 1990 was rejected by the
     authorities.

          One Loganathan along with nine others had applied for permit which
     overlapped notified route. He died on 7th October 1987. His wife F
     Samiyathal was brought on record. On 11th January 1988 permit was
     granted in her favour. Against this order various persons filed appeal and
     on 28th January 1992 a Consent Memo was filed before the appellate
     authority who granted the permit in accordance with the Consent Memo not
     only in favour of Samiyathal but others as well. Validity of this order was G
     challenged by the State Undertaking in the High Court. It was held that
     since the effect of accepting the Consent Memo was to permit grant of fresh
     permits in favour of persons other than Samiyathal in 1992 it was violative
     of the provisions of the Act. Consequently the petition filed by the
     Undertaking was allowed and the pennit granted in favour of others on
     basis of Consent Memo was set aside. But the order granting permit to H
                                                                                  ..


    192                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS          (1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A   Samiyathal being of 1988, the writ filed by the Undertaking against this
    order was dismissed. In S. V. Sivaswami Servai v. Hafez Motor Transport
    (Firm) and Ors., [1990] 4 SCC 459 it has been held that addition of permit
    on agreement was not permissible. Therefore, the High Court did not
    commit any error of law in allowing the writ petition of the Undertaking
    and quashing the permits granted on Consent Memo. Since we have agreed
B   with the decision of the High Court that no permit could have been granted
    after 30th June, 1990, the order passed by the High Court allowing the writ
    petition of the Undertaking against persons other than Samiyathal does not
    suffer from any error of law.

         For these reasons all these appeals fail and are dismissed. The writ
c   petitions on the other hand have become infructous after coming into force
    of the new Act. They are dismissed as such.

          Parties shall bear their own costs ..

    R.A.                                                   Appeals dismissed.