GAJRAJ SINGH ETC versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 12-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GAJRAJ SINGH ETC. 
v. 
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Sections 217(2)(a) & (b) and (4), and 70, 
72 and 81. 
C 
Stage caniage pennit-Granted under repealed Act of 1939-Pennit 
valid till commencement of new Act-Pennit renewed under new Act which 
came into force on 1.7.1989-Validity of-Saving under S.217(2)(a) or 
(b )--<:onditions precedent for applicability of-Held : grant of pennit under 
new Act not a vested or accrl(ed right but only a p1ivilege-Provisions of 
repealed Act inconsistent with those of new Act as regards renewal-Hence, 
D S.217(2)(a) or (b) not attracted-Pennit granted under repealed Act stood 
expired on 1. 7.1989 unless application for renewal pending under S.58 of 
repealed Act-If no application was pending fresh application must be made 
under S.70 of new Act for grant of pennit-S.6 of General Clauses Act 
applicable. · 
E 
Stage Caniage Pemzit-Renewal-Grant of-Nature-Explained. 
Stage Caniage Pennit-Sclzeme approved and published under Chapter 
IV-A of repealed Act of 1939-Such pennits held by named private 
operators-Scheme continued after commencement of new Act on 
F 
1.7.1989-Held: Scheme was self-contained and self-operative and law by 
itself and saved by S.217(2)(a)-Rights of such named private operators alone 
for grant or renewal of their pennits preserved-Such a right was not violative 
of Art. 14 on ground of invidious discrimination-Procedure for grant or 
renewal of pennit laid down-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Ss.68-F(l-D) & 
G 68-F( 1-F). 
General Clauses Act, 1897 : Section 6. 
Repeal of Act-Effect of-Held : Obliterated the Act completely from 
record of Parliament as if it never existed except for transactions past and 
H closed. 
172 
' 
GATRAJ SINGH v. STATE 
173 
Repeal of Act-Followed simultaneously by fresh legislation on same A 
subject-Held : S.6 would be applicable unless new legislation manifested 
contrmy or inconsistell( intention-Hence, Court had to ascerlain such incom-
patibility from relevant p01tions of new Act. 
Inte1pretation of Statutes : 
Interpretation-Subsidiary' rnles of-Legal fiction-Meaning and effect 
of-Explained. 
Administrative Law : 
Repealed Act-Right acquired or accrued unde,-..Per-
mit/licence-Grant of renewal of-Held: amounted to fresh grant-Discretion 
given by Statute-To be exercised on basis of rules of reason and justice and 
not arbitr01ily-Subject to rejection of application for renewal for reasons to 
be recorded-Hence, right to renewal of pennit was not a vested or accrued 
right but only a privilege-General Clauses Act, 1897, S.6(c). 
B 
c 
D 
The appellant was granted a stage carriage permit on the route 
under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Repealed Act) for a 
period of 3 years. The said permit was renewed under Section 81 of the 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which came into force on 1.7.1989) for a further E 
period of 5 years and a second renewal was also granted. The respondents 
bad applied under Section 70 of the Act for· grant of stage carriage permits 
under Section 72 of the Act on the' route which intersected a part of the 
route on which the appellant was operating his stage carriage. Despite 
objections raised by the appellant, the State transport Authority (STA) 
granted permits to them which were challenged in the revision petition F 
filed under Section 90 of the Act before the State Transport Appellate 
Tribunal (STAT). The STAT dismissed the revision petition on the ground 
that the renewal of the permit granted to the appellant was not valid in 
law as the appellant did not get a new permit under the Act. The High 
Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal. G 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the renewal of the 
permit of the appellant granted under the Repealed Act was a permit 
under the Act and its operation was saved by Section 217(2)(a) read with 
sub-section (4) thereof and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897; 
therefore, the second renewal of the permit granted under Section 81 of H 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
the Act which was renewable under Section 68-F(l-D) of Chapter IV-A Qf , 
the Repealed Act was valid in law; that there was no need for the appellant 
to obtain a fresh permit under the Act as the renewal was a continuation 
of the original permit which was a vested right; that Section 21

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