ANNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, DHARMAPURI & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 23-07-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

69 
ANNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, DHARMAPURI & ORS. 
July 23, 1980 
(N. L. UNTWALIA, P. N. SHINGHAL 
AND 
v. D. TULUPURKAR, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), S 68F(1D) and Proviso-Scope and 
applicability. 
Section 68F(lD) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides that no permit 
shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date 
of publiciition, under section 68C of any scheme and the date of publication 
of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person in relation to 
an area or route o,r portion thereof covered by that scheme. 
Respondent No. 2 was a private operator operating a Stage carriage route. 
A 
B. 
c 
Its permit was due to expire on October 9, 1974 and it applied for its 
renewal. 
The application was notified on June 5, 1974 under ·section 57(3) 
D 
of the Motor Vehicles Act. 
Objections to the renewal application were filed 
by the appellant Corporation on June 25, 1974 which also simultaneously 
applied for the grant of a permit to itself. The Regional Transport Authority 
fixed December 21, 1974 for hearing and the case was adjourned. 
In the meanwhile, respondent no. 2 filed a Writ Petition and challenged 
the validity of Rule 155A of the Motor Vehicles Rules and obtained stay of 
E 
the hearing of the matter which was pending before the Regional Transport 
Authority. The validity of the said rule was upheld by the High Court and 
the writ petition was dismissed. 
A draft . scheme of road transport service of the appellant corporation · 
was published on June 4, 1976 under section 68C of the Act and that scheme 
-overlapped a section of the route · operated by respondent no. 2. 
The Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of respondent 
No. 2 on October 30, 1976. and granted a permit to the appellant, which order 
was confirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 
The High Court, however in revision took the view that the matter fell 
within the purview of sub-section (lD) of section 68, but held on a reading 
of the decision in Cheran Transport Co. Ltd. v. Kanan Lorry Service & Anr. 
(1977) 2 SCR 389, that the case fell within the purview of the "rider" to 
proposition no. 2 set out in tliat judgment with reference to the proviso to 
section (lD) of section 68F of the Act. and allowed the revision petitions. 
Allowing the appeals to this Court, 
HELD : (i) By virtue of the clear provmon of sub-section (10) of sec-
F 
G 
tion 68F of the Act, no permit could be granted or renewed during the period 
H 
intervening between the date of publication of the scheme under section 68C, 
and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour 
of any person in any class of road transpo!1 service. 
[72E] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 
(ii) The High Court clearly went wrong in thinking that the case fell 
within the purview of the proviso to sub-section (ID) and it consequently erred 
in taking into consideration the so-called rider to proposition 2 mentioned in 
the judgment in Cheran's case. [72F] 
(iii) The proviso would have been ·~pplicab!e only if the period of operation 
of the permit of the respondent had expired after the publication of the scheme 
prepared under section 68C; but that was not so in this case. 
[72F] 
In the ins_tant case, it was respondent no. 2 who filed a fruitless writ 
petition and prevented the disposal of the renewal application for a long time 
by obtaining a stay order. [72G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos .. 2780-2782 of 
1977. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
22-8-1977 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 559-561 /.77. 
K. Parasaran, Solicitor-General of India and A. V. Rangam for 
the Appellant. 
T. S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, S. Srinivasan and A. T. M. Sam path 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S~INGHAL, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against 
a common judgment of the Madras High Court dated August 22, 
1977, in three revision petitions against the orders of the State Trans-
E 
port Corporation, Madras, dated February 16, 1977, by which the 
High Court allowed the revision petitions and remitted the cases to 
the Regional Transport Authority for fresh consideration in the li~ht 
of its observations. The High Court directed further that the revision 
petitioners before it as well as the present appellant Corporation would 
continue to provide tr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.