LexANNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., SALEM versus SAFE SERVICE LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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.
F
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.
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.
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).
Allowing C.A. Nos. 937-939 of 1980 unqualifiedly aud C.A. Nos.
940-941of1980 qualifiedly, this Court,
B
c
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-
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
E
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
A
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991] 3 S.C.R.
K. A. Natarajan ·v. M. Naina Mohammed & Anr., AIR. 1978
Madras 280, refeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.