G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY versus STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 19-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 1 
G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY 
v. 
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4480of1998) 
JULY19,2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, 'FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM 
KALIFULLA, S.A. BOBDE, R. BANUMATHI AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: ss.48, 57(8), 63 - Whether on 
the publication of an approved scheme the number of trips of the 
vehicles of the existing operators can be increased by granting the 
variation of a permit even when the existing operators are allowed 
to carry on their business as on the date of the publication of the 
scheme -
Held: A close reading of the sub-section (8) of s.57 shows 
that an application for variation of any permit in the case of a 
stage carriage, for the purpose of increasing the number of trips as 
well as number of vehicles covered by the permit, mandatorily to be 
treated as an application for the grant of a new permit - s.57(8) is 
controlled by s. 68FF falling under Chapter IV-A, by virtue of the 
superseding effect of s.68B also falling under Chapter IVA - Once 
a scheme formulated under s. 68D gets approved, then all the permits 
in the route/area covered by the scheme get frozen by virtue of 
operation of s.68FF - The effect of s.68FF can be altered /modified/ 
cancelled only in the manner as provided for under s.68E and in 
no other manner - By virtue of that, either a grant of a ne11• permit 
or the variation of an existing permit of private operator cannot be 
ordered in respect of an area or route covered by an Approved 
Scheme ..:. Increase in the number of trips or vehicles which were 
being run under the existing exempted permit under a Scheme will 
amount to grant of a new permit to operate one more Stage Carriage 
which is not permissible under s.68FF. 
s.57 - Application for variation of permit - Requirement for 
its grant - Held: A conspectus consideration of sub-sections (1) to 
(5) and (7) along with sub-section (8) of s.57 shows that an 
application for variation when treated as an application for the 
grant of a new permit, all the mandatory requirements which are to 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
be followed for the grant of a new permit have to be followed in 
letter and spirit even with reference to an application for increasing 
the trips as well as for increasing the number of vehicles. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Answering the reference, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A close reading of the sub-section (8) of section 
57 shows that an application for variation of any permit in the 
case of a stage carriage, for the purpose of increasing the number 
of trips as well as number of vehicles covered by the permit, 
mandatorily to be treated as an application for the grant of a new 
permit. A close reading of sub-sections (1) to (7) demonstrate 
how such provisions mandates compliance of various specific 
requirements, which are intricately connected, with the grant of 
a new permit, which are to be 'mutatis mutandis' to be complied 
with even in respect of an application for variation, which is 
governed by sub-section (8). It is not as if such procedures 
prescribed in sub-sections (1) to (7) barring sub-section (6) are 
to be followed casually and that the same would ultimately result 
in grant of variation irrespective of compliance or non-compliance 
of such rigorous procedures. If the prescription of the time limit, 
specified in sub-section (2) is not complied with, it may result in 
instantaneous invalidation of the application at the very threshold. 
Similarly, if the Regional Transport Authority failed to follow the 
statutory prescription in the matter of publication of such an 
application, by following the time limit and the other prescribed 
procedure under the Rules, then again, the consideration of the 
application itself may not take place until such prescriptions are 
meticulously followed and complied with. Then again, under sub-
section (4) anyone who wants to make a representation as against 
the grant of variation will have to strictly follow the time limit 
viz., filing of such representation before the appointed date as 
notified by the Regional Transport Authority and that while filing 
such representation, it must be ensured that simultaneously a 
copy was served on the applicant, failure to follow such 
prescription will automatically result in rejection of the right of 
hearing or right of consideration of any such representation with 
reference to the application for variation. [Para

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