CHERAN TRANSPORT CO. LTD. versus KANAN LORRY SERVICE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 10-12-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CHERAN TRANSPORT CO. LTD. 
v. 
KANAN LORRY SERVICE AND ANOTHER 
December 10, 1976 
389 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND v. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act-Secs. 58, 68-C. 68D(3), 68F(lD)-Stage 
carriag11 
opertltor-Permit-Renewal-Renewal application made within time-Whether 
can be defeated by Pµblication of Schem,e. 
A 
B 
The respondent was a Stage Carriage Operator whose two permits were 
t() expire in January and March 1976. In the usual course and in compliance 
with section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, he applied for renewal more 
C 
than 120 days ahead but at the time of the actual date of expiry of the permits 
· a draft scheme under part IV-A had been published. 
The State withdrew the 
draft 8Cheme under part IV-A for some technical reasons and republished in 
July 1975, after the appellants' permits bad expired. Section 68F(ID) provides 
that :110 permit shall be granted or renewal during the period intervening bet-
ween the date of publication under s. 68C of any scheme and the date of pub-
lication of the approved or modified scheme. The proviso to the said section 
provides that if a permit expires after the publication of the 
scheme 
such 
D 
permit may be renewed for a limited period but the renewed permit 
shall 
cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under s. 68D(3 ). Applying 
the prohibition contained in s. 68F(ID) the Regiooal Transport Authority 
rejected the prayer for renewal. 
The High Court set aside that order 
and 
directed the grant of the renewal. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : I. At the time the respondents' permit expired a draft scheme had 
E 
already been published but the approved scheme had not been published. Any 
permit holder whose permit expires during this spell is eligible for a renewal as 
specified in the proviso. 
The fact that the draft scheme was later withdrawn 
cannot affect the rights to a renewal. Renewal of the permit however would be 
to the extent contemplated by section 68F(ID). [3900-HJ 
2. 
(a) No permit or renewal except to the extent expressly saved by sec· 
tion 68F(ID) can be granted by the Regional Transport Authonly 
durin~ 
the period between the date of publication of any scheme and 
the date 
of 
publication of the approved scheme. [391C] 
(b) If a permit expires after the publication of any draft scheme 
MJch 
permit is eligible for renewal for a limited period as set out in the proviso. The 
special pro"1ision contained in that proviso cannot be stretched on the ground 
of possihle anomalies or unjust consequences to cover permits expiJiug even 
before the publication of the draft scheme. 
Where language is plain the inter-
pretation cannot take the shape of addition or interstitial legislation. [39!C-D] 
3. If a permit holder whose permit is about to expire diligently does in 
the normal course, all that he needs and all that he can, that is to sny. if he 
F 
G 
sets in motion the legal machinery for the grant of renewal as laid down in 
sedion 58, the fact that a scheme is published before the 
actual 
grant 
of 
renewal will not intercept or extinguish the process of law set in motion by the 
application for renewal. If for reasons beyond the control of the applicant the 
renewal process gets delayed or prolonged he cannot be penalised. 
Renewal is 
H 
a legal process and not the final act. 
Save in this category of cases all other 
permits which have expired before .the draft· scheme is publis~ed, suffer the ban 
of s. 68F(1D). However, no permit can ensure beyond the time of the publica-
tion of the approved scheme. [391D-FJ 
A 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 2 S.C.1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
Nos. 1349-
1350/76. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 
the 12th October 1976 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition 
Nos. 5881 and 5884 of 1975. 
B 
V. P. Raman, Addl. Sol. General of India, (Mrs.) N. G. Krishna 
Iyengar, Shri Narain, K. l. John, D. N. Mishra for the Appellant. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
F. S. Nariman, M. N. Rangachari, A. R. Ramanathan, Jayaraman, 
M. M. L. Srivastava and A. T. M. Sampath for Respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
KRISHNA IYER, J. The short question, involving a point of cons-
truction of s. 68-F(ID), has been raised by the Additional Solicitor 
General in these appeals by Special Leave. 
The respondent was a stage carriage operator whose two permits 
were to expire in January and March 1976. 
In the usual course and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.