LexD. M. THIPPESWAMY versus THE MYSORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
862 D. M. THJPPESW AMY v. ' THE MYSORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. May 4, 1972 [K. S. HBGDE, A. N. GROVER AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.-:Ss. 63(1), 68(c) and 68(F)-'An existing p,rmit ho/der'-meaning ·of-Who can cancel an existing B permit of a Transport operator under s. 68F(2)' of the Act. The appellant, a transport operator, obtained a permit from the Regio· naj. Transport Authority for an inter-State route from Mysore State tq Andhra Pradesh. Even before this permit was issued to him, the State of Myoore had notified a draft scheme under s. 68(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, providing for the operation of the trunk routes by the State Transport undertaking in the Bellary District. C M.S.R.T.C., a State Transport Undertaking and others ob1ected to the issue of the permit to the aP~llant but the E.T.A. in Mysore State over· ruled their objections. Aggrieved by the said order, M.S.R.T.C. & other rival ciaimants appealed before the Mymre State Transport Appellato Tribunal. Meanwhile, the Government· issued a notification u/s 68(3) of the Act approving the draft scheme issued by it earlier. One of the clauses of the scheme knowri as Bellary scheme, provided that the State D Transport Undertaking will operate services on all routes exoept to the partions of the inter-district routes lying outside the Bellary district. The existing permit holders were allowed to coutinue their operations in inter-State routes subject to the condition that their permits shall be rendered ineffective by the competent authority for the over-lapping por· lion in the district of Bellary. Thereafter, the M.S.R.T.C. applied for permits, u/s. 68 F for the routes mentioned under the Bellary scheme. Till then the appellant had not obtained the counter signature of the con- cerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh as required u/s 63 (I) of the Act. The appeal filed by M.S.R.T.C. was dismissed by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Authority and M.S.R.T.C. went up jn appeal before Mysore Revenue Appellate Trib11.nal. During the pendency of that appeal, the appellant obtamed cot1nter-signatures of the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh for his inter-State permit. The permit i•sued to the appel- lant was renewed by the R.T.A. in Mysore State and duly countersigned by the concerned R.T.A. Andhra pradesh. In 1970, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the M.S.R.T.C. and set aside the grant in favour df the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not an existing permit holder and, therefore, not entitled to operate in the route 1n questiOn. Appellant chal· lenged that decision before the High Court <ly filing a writ but it was dis· missed. On appeal by special leave to this Court it was contended on behalf Of the appellant that since the appellant's permit had been counte~ signed by the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh before the permit granted to M.S.R.T.C., the appellant must be considered as an existing permit holder as contemplated by the scheme. Secondly, under the 'Bellary Scheme', there was only a partial exclusion and not total exclu· sion. Therefore' all that the R.T.A. could have done under.•· 68F!2) was to make his permit from Bellary Town to Bellary border meffecttve. and not to cancel his permit altogether and lastly, Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal could. not have cancelled his permit. Only R.T.A. could do so under s. 68F(2). E F G H A B c D E F D. M. TH!PPESWAMY v. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Hegde. J.) 563 Dismissing the appeal, HELD: (i) The appellant was not an existing permit holder at any rate on July 28, 1964 when the M.S.R. T.C. applied for a permit for the route in question. In Abdul Gafoor v. State of Mysore, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 909, it was observed by this Court that when a schen_ie \'repared anti published under s. 68:C has been. approved and. the appbcati~n bas been made in the proper manner, nothmg more rem:uns to be decided by the Regional Transport Authority and it has no option to refuse the grant of the permit. Further;"'lhil date on which the transport undertaking applies u/s, . 68F(1) for t!ie permit, that must be date with reference to which the expression "existing permit holder" must be interpretea. t567 H] T. N. Raghunatha Reddy v. Mysore State Transport Authority, (1970] l S.C.R. 760 referred to. (ii) Under the Bellary scheme, the only persons whole permits are saved ar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.