LexNILKANTH PRASAD AND OTHERS versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
728 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 1951 NILKANTH PRASAD AND OTHERS D1cnnbtr 1. V. STATE OF BIHAR (P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, and M. HIDAYJ.TULLJ.B, JJ.) .Motor Transporl-llmfU notifit.d ulldtr acAe1M-8ta1t Tranrporl U nderlaking euliui.dy allowtd to Ojlffllt• 1Atri!011- Previo1J11 operator'• liance, if ca11 be re~Nolifitd route formiftg part of /011ger route operatd by pri IJU operator1- Privat. operator•, if =ludtd-.Motor Yehiclu Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), •· 68F(2)(c)(iii). Under a scheme framed and notified under the Motor Vehicles Act a certain route wa1 notified under 1. 68D of the Act and the Rajya Transport, Bihar was exclusively allowed to operate on that route. The aaid notified route formed part of routca on which the appellants were operating, and in respect of which they had asked for renewal of their permits. The Rajya Transport, Bihar filed objectioru against the renewal of the permits in some cases but .in other case no objection was filed. The question which arose · for decision was whether the permits of the appellants could be renewed by the Regional Transport Authority. The appellants C9ntcnded that as the notified route formed part of a larger route operated by a private operator, the two routes must he regarded as different route, and the private operator could not be prevented from run- ning his omnibuses on that portion of his route, which wu a different route, although notified. Hild that as decided by this Court in Abdul Oafoor' a ca>e, the 0Regional Transport .Aurhority had no option but to rt fuse the permit to the P""."te opcr~tor, ii the ~tate Transport Undertaking had either applied for a permit or had already been granted one. Abdul Gafoor v. Blah of My.,,., A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 1956, followed. If the Regional Transport Authority did not do its duty under the law the Appeal Board WU entitled, when the record was before it, to revise the order of the Regional Transport Authority under its revisional powers u provided in s. 64A of the Act, even If the appeal wu incompe~t. &1111Jr!A Trauporl Co. v. &giofoal T....._,,.,, ..tulAorily Nagpw, A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 93, followed. , ' (1) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 729 In the present case the appellants were not entitled to run over those portions of their routes which were notified as part of the scheme. Those pordons could not be said to be different routes, but must be regarded as portions of the routes of the private operators, from which the private operators stood excluded under s. 68F (2) (c) (iii) of the Act. Kelani Valley Mater TraMit Co. v. Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co., [19%] A. C. 338 and Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Tran1port Corporation, A I.R. 1961 S. C. 82, comidered. - CIVIL APPELL.ATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 524 to 5:!9 or 1961. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 5, 1961, of the Patna High Court, in Misc. Judicial oases Nos. 670 to 675 of 1959. WITH Civil Appeal No. 434 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 8, 1960, of the Patna High Court, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 334 of 1960. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and B.P. Jha, for the appellants. (in C. As. Nos. 534 to 538 and 434 of 1961). B. P. Jha, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 539 of 1961). Lal Narain Sinha, L. S. Sinha and S. P~ Jlerma, for the respondents. 1961. December 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1961 Nilkanth Pratai •• StaU of Bihar HIDAYATULLAH, J.-The judgment in Civil Hi'41atu/IM "· Appeal No. 534 of 1961 will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 535 to 539 of 1961. In these appeals, private operators of omnibuses challenge the orders of the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority, by which it set aside the renewal of the permits on certain routes granted by the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Patna. The appellants held 1gs1 Nilkanlh Pro.sol v. Stalt of Bihar liida;atullah J. 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. previously stage carriage permits over certain routes which were due to expire in December, l 9;i8 or in January, 19ii9. They bad applied for renewal of their permits under R. 58(2) of the i\fotor Vehicles Act. Under a scheme framed and notified on July 8, 1957, tide Notification No. p.2.203/5iT/ 4 794, the route, Ga ya to Khijirsarai, was notified under s. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Rajya Transport, Bihar, was exclusively allowed to operate o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.