SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER versus D.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1038 · Decided: 12-12-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, 
'
1 
BANGALORE AND ANOTHER 
v. 
D.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS 
··~ 
DECEMBER 12, 1988 
[M.M. DUTT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act 1939: Sections 62, 63 and 63(6)-'Special 
permit' grant 'of~Whether permissible after Karnataka Contract Car-
riages Acquisition Act 1976 came into force. ' 
· 
Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Att 1976: Sections 
3(g), 3(m), 14 and 20(3)-'Contract Carriage'-'Special Permit'-
Jssuance of--Undersection 63(6)-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-:-Permissibi-
lity of. 
Words and Phrases-'Has been'-Meaning of. 
Respondent No. 1, the owner of a public service vehicle, made an 
application to the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of a 
'special· permit' under section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 
The Regional Transport Authority rejected the said application on the 
£ 
ground that the provisions of the Karnataka Contract Carriages 
(Acquisition) Act, 1976 prohibited the grant of such permit. 
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of refusal, respondent No. 1 
filed a writ petition in the High Court and a Single Judge of the High 
Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Regional Transport 
F 
Authority to consider the application of respondent No. 1 for the grant 
of a special permit. 
The Regional Transport Authority preferred a writ appeal. The 
Division Bench of the High Court taking the view that the intention of 
the Legislature was that only a public service vehicle in relation to 
G 
which a special permit had been issued when the 1976 Act came into 
force and which was not operating as a stage carriage should be ac-
quired, held that a public service vehicle in relation to which a special 
permit had not been issued when the Act came into force would not 
come within the definition of 'contract carriage' under section 3(g) of 
the Act and the prohibition contained in section 20 of the Act against the 
H grant of contract carriage permit would not extend to the grant of 
1038 
I 
I 
SECY.; REGIONAL TPT .. AUTHORITY v. D.P. SHARMA 
1039 
special permit under sub-section 6 of section 63 of the Motor Vehicles 
Act. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal. 
The Regional Transport Authority appealed by special leave to 
this Court. On the question: whether after the coming into force of the 
Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, a special permit 
under section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 can be granted 
under the Act. 
" 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: 1. Section 14 read with Section 20(3) of the Karnataka 
Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 confers a monopoly on the 
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation to run vehicles as con-
tract carriages. [IOSOA] 
2. Section 14 read with section 20(3) of the Act clearly prohibits 
the grant of renewal of any permit for the running of any contract 
carriage. [I049G] 
3. The High Court was not therefore right in its view that a public 
service vehicle in relation to which a special permit had not been Issued 
when the Act came into force, would not com~ within the defmition of 
'contract carriage' in section 3(g) and the prohibition contained in Sec-
tion 20 of the Act against the grant of contract carriage permit cannot 
extend to grant of special permit under Section 63( 6) of the Motor 
Vehicles Act. [IOSOB-CJ 
4. Under clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3(g) of the Act if a special 
permit under Section 63(6) or a temporary permit l!nder Section 62(1) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
or sub-section (1-C) of Section 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act has been 
F 
\ 
issued, it will came within the purview of the definition of 'contract 
., 
carriage'. [1046C-D] 
· 
5. If a special permit under Section 62(1) or under Section 63(6) 
of the Motor Vehicles Act was in force on January 30, 1976 in respect of 
a stage carriage, such a stage carriage will not be a 'contract carriage' 
G 
within the meaning of Section 3(g) of the Act. [1046D] 
6. Whether the expression 'has been' occurring in a provision of 
a statute denotes .transaction prior to the enactment of the statute in 
question or a transaction after the coming into force of the statute will 
depend upon the intention of the Legislature to be gathered from the 
H 
A 
B 
c 
I. 
1040 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
provision in .which the said expression occurs or from the other provi-
sions of the statute. [1046H; 1047A) 
In the instant case, the .words 'has been' contemplate the issuance 
of a spe

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