PRAKASH CHANDRA SAHU
v.
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS.
MARCH 3, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
S.87-Permanent Stage Carriage Permit granted under 1939
Act-Renewal of-Permit expired after coming into force of 1988 Act-Ap-
plication for renewal of permit-Held, in view of decision of this Court* if
any permit was renewed under the provisions of 1988 Act, the renewal .was to
be treated to be a temporary permit u/s. 87; and before expiry thereof parties
would make an application afresh and seek permit in accordance with law-lf
A
B
the appellant has any right for grant of permi~ these same has to be in
accordance with law-Necessary application which comes to be made in D
accordance with law should be disposed of by the S. TA. as per the provisions
of the 1988 Act,
*Gajraj Singh & Ors. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1997] 1
sec 650, relied on.
CIVIL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1828 of
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.96 of the Orissa High Court
in O.J.C. No. 3073 of 1995.
A.K. Panda for the Appellant.
A.K. Ganguli, K.N. Tripathy, D. Mohanty, J.R. Das a.nd P.N. Misra
for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated August 9,
1996, made by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in OJC No.
E
F
G
3073/95.
H
635
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997) 2 S.C.R.
A
The admitted position is that at one point of time the appellant had
a permanent stage carriage permit operating on the inter-State route, viz.,
Pcralakhemundi to Bcrhampur via Chatrapur and Garabandha. After the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force, the appellant filed an applica-
tion for renewal of the permit and the dispute arose whether he is entitled
B to renewal of the permit. Since, admittedly, the permit granted under Act
4 of 1939 expired after the 1988 Act came into force, he was to apply afresh
under the 1988 Act. Earlier when he had filed a Writ Petition, OJC No.
3421/93, the High Court had directed reconsideration of the application
for renewal and also the application of the contesting respondents, after
decision was taken on the application of the petitioner therein. Admittedly,
C the State Transport Authority had considered their applications and
rejected the application for renewal and granted fresh permit to the third
respondent. On a clarification sought by the contesting respondent, the
High Court had pointed out that the judgment was not intended to have
the permit granted to the contesting respondent cancelled; nonetheless the
D application of the appellant would be considered as and when need arose.
Shri A.K. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in
view of the decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh & Ors. v. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, [1997] 1 SCC 650, in particular paragraph 62, the
appellant is entitled to apply afresh and to be considered by the authorities
E in accordance with law. He has stated that he had filed an application for
renewal on 4.11.1996 for grant of permanent licence. In view of the above
decision of this Court, if any permit was renewed under the provisions of
the 1988 Act, the renewal was to be treated to be a temporary permit under
Section 87 of that Act and that before expiry thereof, parties were directed
F
to make an application afresh under the 1988 Act and seek permit there-
under in accordance with law,-The direction issued by the High Court is
not inconsistent with the above judgment of this Court. Under those
circumstances, if the appellant has any right for grant of permit, the same
has to be in accordance with law. Necessary application which comes to be
made in accordance with law should be disposed of by the S.T.A. as per
G the provisions of the 1988 Act.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. No
costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex