CHERAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. COIMBATORE versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY COIMBATORE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 784 · Decided: 19-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHERAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. COIMBATORE 
B 
v. 
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY 
COIMBATORE AND ORS. 
JANUARY 19, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939/Motor Vehicles Act, 1988/Tamil Nadu Motor 
C Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992: 
S.48/s.70/s.10-Application for renewal of stage carriage permit by a 
private transpo1t operator-Counter application by State Transport Undertak-
ing for stage carriage pennit for the same route-Regional Transp01t Authority 
applying marking system and granting permit in favour of State Transport 
D Undertaking on the basis of more marks obtained by it-High Court by interim 
orders allowing both the claimants to ply stage carriages on the route--Later 
while deciding the matter finally, High Court allowing both operators to ply 
stage carriages on the route on the ground that travelling public became 
accustomed to such pattern of service for a number of years-Held Private 
operator cannot be allowed to continue to ply its vehicle on the route-There 
E being only one permit to be given for the route, State Transport Undertaking 
having obtained more marks was rightly granted permit-Private operator 
having got less marks could not have been given a valid permit and as such 
cannot claim protection under .i.10. 
F 
The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, while considering 
the claim of respondent No. 2, a private transport operator, for renewal of, 
the stage carriage permit for the route Coimbatore to Kottur for a further 
period of five years from 1978, and the counter-claim of the appellant, a 
State Transport Undertaking, for grant of Stage carriage permit for the 
same route, applied marking system and determined 11 marks for the 
G appellant and 6 marks for respondent no. 2. It rejected the renewal 
application of the latter and granted the permit in favour of the appellant. 
( 
, . 
' 
The Tribunal while upholding the order observed that the grant of permit 
J 
• 
in favour of the appellant was in public interest. In the revision petition 
tiled by respondent no. 2, the Madras High Court granted interim orders, 
H as a result of which both the appellant as well as respondent no. 2 
784 
, 
CHERAN TPT. COR PN. LTD. v. REGL. TPT. AUTHORITY 
785 
continued to ply their vehicles on the route. Later, while deciding the A 
revision petition finally, the High Court allowed both the claimants to ply 
their stage carriages on the same route, holding that since respondent no. 
2 had been permitted to operate continuously for a period of 10 years along 
with the appellant, and the travelling public was accustomed to such 
pattern of service for a number of years, the same should not be disturbed. 
Aggrieved, the State Transport Undertaking filed the present appeal. 
Similarly, the other appeals were filed in identical circumstances. 
B 
It was contended for the appellant that since there was only one 
permit, the High Court should not have allowed respondent no. 2 also to 
continue to ply the stage carriage on the same route for the reasons C 
indicated by it. Respondent no. 2, on the other hand, contended that by 
virtue of s.10 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 
1992, the permit earlier granted to it, stood renewed. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The mere fact that the travelling public had been using 
the carriages run by the appellant and respondent no. 2 can, by itself, not 
be a ground for allowing the said respondent to continue to ply the 
carriage. [789-A] 
D 
S. V. Sivaswamiv.Motor Transport (Film), [1990] 3 SCR802, relied on. E 
M. Chinnaswamy v. Dhandayuthanpani Roadways, AIR (1977) SC 
2095, distinguished. 
2.1 Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) 
Act, 1992 does not validate any permit which was initially invalid. It is a F 
provision which continues the permits etc. which had been validly granted 
under the old Act. As no valid permit could have been granted to respondent 
no. 2 from the route Coimbatore to Kottur, the provisions of section 10 
cannot give a right to respondent no. 2 to. get the permit when it had secured 
1 
six marks, under the marking system. [789-F-G] 
G 
2.2 When there was only one permit to be given for the route under 
consideration and the marks obtained by the appellant were much than 
that of respondent the Appellate Tribunal had rightly upheld the order of 
the Regional Transport Authority granting the stage carriage permit to the 
appellant

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