LexRAJ TRANSPORT CO. PVT. LTD., AMRITSAR versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PB. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 868 A RAJ TRANSPORT CO. PVT. LTD., AMRITSAR B v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PB. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9762 of 2010 etc.) • NOVEMBER 19, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 104, 99 to 103 - C Applicability of new Transport Scheme to pending cases - Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route - Four stage carriage permits for plying - Invitation of applications by State Transport Commissioner before enactment of 1988 Act - Grant of two permits to Pepsu D State Transport Corporation - Withholding of two permits - Claim for grant of said two permits by private operators - During pendency of appeals, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 repealed by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and new Transport Scheme coming into operation whereby all future operations E of the monopoly route would be operative by State Transport Undertaking - Dismissal of appeals by courts below, in view of the 1988 Act and new Transport Scheme - Held: Justified - 1988 Act would be applicable and would govern cases in respect of two permits for which applications were pending F before appellate tribunal on the date when 1988 Act came into force - Relevant date is the date of the grant of the permit and such date cannot relate back to any earlier period - When the provision was inserted, private operators had no permit granted in their favour by Regional Transport Authority G - Factually it was granted only after promulgation of the Scheme - Thus, the said Scheme does not give any protection or benefit to private operators - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. H In the year 1988, the State Transport Commissioner 868 RAJ TRANSPORT CO. PVT. LTD. v. STATE TPT APPELLATE 869 TRIBUNAL PB. invited applications for grant of four stage-carriage A permits for plying two return trips daily on the Samana- Amritsar route. The appellants and the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) applied for the permit. The State Road Transport Corporation granted only two stage carriage permits to PRTC and withheld the B remaining two permits. The appellants and others filed appeals. Meanwhile, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which governed the proceedings, was repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A new transport Scheme was also introduced whereby all future operations of the monopoly c route would be operative by State Transport Undertaking. The appellate tribunal granted two permits to the four appellants. In the writ petitions, the Division Bench of High Court remitted the matter back to the appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal upheld the grant of the two 0 permits to PRTC. With regard to the two permits withheld by the STC, it was held that the same could not be granted to the appellants, since, after coming into force of the Transport Scheme, the said route ·tell on the monopoly route of Punjab Roadways and PRTC. The High Court upheld the order passed by the appellate E tribunal. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1.1 On reading Section 104 with the provisions of Section 98, sub-section (2) of Section 99 and Sections 102 and 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is clear that the provisions of the new Act, which came into operation, would be applicable and govern the cases in respect of the two permits for which appeals G were pending before the appellate tribunal on the date when the said new Act came into force. During the pendency of the said appeals also the new Transport Scheme came into operation and, therefore, the claim of the appellants for grant of two permits which was H 870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A pending before the appellate tribunal was governed in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the Scheme which was promulgated and was operative and functioning. The relevant date is the date of the grant of the permit and such date cannot B relate back to any ear!ier period when the order was passed by the State Transport Commissioner, particularly, in view of the amendment which gives emphasis on the date of grant of the permit, which factually came to be granted only after promulgation of the Scheme. [Para 14] C [876-G-H; 877-A-D] 1.2 The Scheme was introduced in the year 1990 and the said substitution of a new clause in place of old clause (4) was brought about in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.