PANDIYAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD. versus THIRU M.A. EGAPPAN

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 24-02-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
f i 
-
PANDIYAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
THIRU M.A. EGAPPAN 
FEBRUARY 24, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH & K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 
1939--Section 68-F(l-D)-Principle 
underlying provision is that number of services on such route to be 
frozen on publication of scheme under Section 68C-No justification to 
limit provision to applications for fresh permit or their renewal and to 
leave out applications for variation of a permit. 
, 
A 
B 
c 
The appellant is one of the State Transport Undertakings. On 
June 30, 1976 an approved scheme was published under s.68-D of the 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in respect of the route Madurai to Kumuli 
authorising the appellant to run its stage carriages and proposing to 
exclude completely all other persons from operating their stage carriage 
D 
services under permits covering the entire route except those persons 
mentioned in Annexure II to the scheme, who were existing operators 
on the different sectors of the notified route on the date of the publica-
tion of the scheme. 
The respondent's name was not mentioned in Annexure II as he 
E 
was operating on a non-scheme route. On February 28, 1981 the 
respondent secured the variation of his permit from the Regional 
Transport Authority enabling him to operate on a sector of the notified 
routes. The appeal against the said order was dismissed and no revision 
petition was filed against that order. 
On December 23, 1982 the respondent obtained from the Regional 
Transport Authority a second variation of his permit which authorised 
him to operate his stage carriage service on the route which was also a 
part of the notified route. An appeal med against that order was dismis-
sed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 
The High Court dismissed the revision petition taking the view 
that s.68-F(l-D) of the Act could not be considered as a bar for enter-
taining an application for the variation of a permit since such an appli-
cation was neither an application for a permit nor for its renewal. 
F 
G 
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant it was 
H 
39! 
A 
B 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
contended I.hat a draft scheme published under s.68-C of the Act on 
June 4, 1976, which was still in force was a bar to the grant of variation 
of the permit authorising the respondent to operate his stage carriage 
on a sector of the route iu respect of which the scheme had been 
published. 
c 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that on a true con-
struction of the scheme only persons who were operating their stage 
carriages under permits issued in respect of the entire route from 1 
Madurai to Kumuli alone have been excluded under the approved 
scheme and not those who were operating between any two places on the 
notified route or between any place lying outside the notified route and ··--<" -
a place on the notified route even though they might be operating on a 
portion of the notified route. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. In the context in which s.68-F(l-D) of the Motor 
D 
Vehicles Act, 1939 appears it is difficult to hold that the application for 
variation of a permit by including the whole or any part of route in 
respect of which a scheme is published under s.68-C of the Act can be 
treated as falling outside the mischief of s.68-F(l-D) of the Act. There is 
no justification to limit the application of s.68-F(l-D) to only applica-
tions for fresh permits or their renewal and to leave out their applica-
E lion for variation of a permit by the exclusion of the route or a portion 
of the route in respect of which a scheme is published. The fact that the 
applicant is the holder of a permit to operate a stage carriage on 
another route whose variation he is seeking by the inclusion of a route 
or a part whereof in respect of which a scheme is published under 
s.68-C ought not to make any difference. The principle underlying 
F s.68-F(l-D) is that the number of services on such a route should be 
frozen on the publication of a scheme under s.68-C. [395E-H] 
2. The approved scheme excludes the operation by others of stage 
carrh{ge service on the said route except those whose names are 
mentioned in Annexure II attached thereto. The respondent is not pro-
G tected by any provision under the approved scheme itself. He cannot be 
permitted to operate on any sector of the notified route in question in 
view of the provisions contained in s.68-C, 68-D and 68-FF. [3968-C] 
Karnataka Stat

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