KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. ETC.ETC. versus KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 1008 · Decided: 01-10-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
13 
c 
D 
KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 
CORPN. LTD. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE 
TRIBUNAL & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 1, 1986 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: ss. 2(29A), 2(16), 63(7)-Cl. (iv) of 
provis<>-Rule of 'preference'-lnterpretation and application of-
Clause (iv)-Whether infringes Article 14 of the Constitution-"Tourist 
Vehicle" may include a motor car, a motor car excludes an omnibus. 
Words and Phrases: "Tourist Vehic/e"-Meaning of-ss. 2(29A) 
and2(16), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 
Administrative Law: 
Statutory Tribunal-Decision of-Cannot be pre-empted by ex-
E 
ecutive discretion. 
F 
G 
H 
Sub-section (7) of s. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 empowers 
the State Transport Authority, for the purpose of promoting tourism, to 
grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India, in respect of such 
number of tourist vehicles as the Central Government may in resP!'ct of 
that State specify in this behalf. A proviso to that sub-section, intro-
duced by s. 24 of the Amending Act of 1978 laid down that preference 
shall be given to applications for permits from (i) the India Tourism 
Development Corporation; (ii) a State Tourism Development Corpora-
tion; (iii) a State Tourist Department, and (iv) operators of tourist cars, 
or travel agents, approved in this behalf by the Central Government. 
Thel'e were as many as 495 applications before the Karnataka 
State Transp0rt Authority for the grant of 14 All India Tourist Vehicle 
permits. By its proceedings dated April 30, 1984, the Authority granted 
11 permits to the Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation, 
one to the Indian Tourism Development Corporation and two to the 
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. 
1008 
'y 
t .. 
,.. 
KAR. S.D.C. v. KAR. S.T. APP. TRIL. 
1009 
On appeals being preferred, the Karnataka State Transport 
AppellateTribunal, by its order dated February 28, 1985 set aside the 
grant of two permits in favour of the Karnataka State Road Transport 
Corporation, .three out of eleven permits to the Karuataka State 
Tourism Development Corporation, and instead granted three permits 
to private operators and increased the nu.;..ber of permits granted to the 
Indian Tourism Development Corporation from one to three, on the 
premises that in view of the rule of preference enunciated by the proviso 
to s. 63(7) the applications from the non-preferred category had to be 
excluded as the number of applications from the applicants who were 
required to be given preference exceeded the number of permits to be 
granted. Though some of the appellants before the Tribunal had better. 
expertise, experience and resources they did not succeed. 
The High Court rejected the writ petitions on the ground that the 
rule of preference contained in the proviso to s. 63(7) contemplated 
exclusion of the 'non~preferred' class, if sufficient number of applicants 
from the preferred classes were available. 
In these appeals by special leave, it was contended for the appel-
lants that on a correct interpretation of the proviso to s. 63(7) the 
preference became operative only if other things were equal. It was also 
). 
urged that the fourth sub-clause of the proviso offended Art. 14 of the 
1 Constitution, and had to be struck down .. 
Allowing .the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The rule contained in the proviso to s. 63(7) of the 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is a rule of preference and not a rule of 
exclusion, for it does not say that the permit shall be granted to the 
categories of operators specified therein. The claims of eligible appli-
cants must be considered on merits, applying the rule of preference 
whenever the claims are approximately equal. The application of an 
applicant is not to be altogether excluded from consideration on the sole 
ground that another applicant is entitled to preference. Though the 
proviso does not expressly refer to other things being equal, the princi-
ple is very much implicit in it. [JOISB-E] 
1.2 What has been said by this Court in Sher Singh. v. Union of 
India, [1984] 1 SCR 464, about preference in relation to s. 47(1-H) 
applies mutatis mutandis to the preference contemplated by the proviso 
to s. 63(7) in the instant case. [ 1017C] 
ll 
c 
I) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1010 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 
2.1 Clause (iv) of the proviso to s. 63(7) is arbitrary, unreason-
able and uncoostitutional. Th~re is no in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.