SHER SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 21-10-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. . 
:n 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
464 
SHER SINGH & ORS. 
v . 
UNION -OF INDiA AND OTHERS 
f?ctober 21, 1983 
(D.A. DESAI, 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J 
Constitution of India 1950 Article 14 & 19 (/) (g) 
Motor 
Vehicles 
Acf-1939-Secaon 47 
(l·H) Preferente to State 
Transport Corporations for grant of inter-state permit over private operators-
Whether denial of equality before law-Denial of right to carry on trade. 
~.;"-
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Sections 47 (/·H) &'58 (2)-Grant of Jnter·;tate 
·permit-Preference to Slate transport Corp'orations-Whether violative of-Articles 
. 
. 
14 and 19 ,(!) (g) of the Constitution. 
· 
Application/or renewal of existini permit by private operator-Whether 
enlil/ed.to preference over fresh application of a State Transport Unde'.·taking. 
Ta1nilnadu 11-fotor .Vehicles Rules 155 A-Assignment of 5 marks to State 
Transport Undertaking-Whether valid. 
Words &:Phrases. 
''as if"-Meaning of-Se~tion 58 (2) Motor Vehicles Act 1939. 
The petitioner in the Special Leave Petition was the holder of a Stage 
· carriage permit on an interwState route 
He held several permits for· operation 
or"thc s_aid route and as the period prescribed for a few of them harJ <expjred, he 
applied for renewal under settion 58 of the Motor ·Vehicles Act, 1939 to the 
Regional Transport -A\lthority which granted renewal.• In .the meanwhile, the 
State Road Tfansport Corporation the 5th ·respondent made an. application for 
grant of a stage can:iage permit for operation on the said r~ute. This application 
. was advertised and the matter was taken up for .consideration. During the 
pendency of this application the Petitio·ner was granted temporary permits 
under section 62 which ~ere renewed from time to time. 
' 
When the application or"the petitioner for renewal of permits 3.nd _the. 
application of the State Road Transport Corporation for .allotment of new 
permit were taken up for consideration, an objection was raised on behalf of 
.··the Corporation that as the route was an inter-State route it was entitled to the· 
permit in prefcrenCe to the p~titioner in vivw of section -47 (1-H). On b~half 
of the petitioner it was contended that Secrion 58 entitled the petition~r to 
renewal of permit in preference to the Corporation·. The Regional Transport 
Authority negatived the· petitioner's contention a~d ailotted the .Permit to the 
Road Transport Corporation. 
• 
-
,I 
SHER SINGH v. UNION 
465 
The petitioner in liis wfit petition to the High Court contended that 
section'. 47 (1-H) was constitutionally invalid and no prefernce could be granted 
in favour of the State Road Transport Gorporation. The Single Judge dismissed 
the writ petition and the ·Division -Bench upheld t~e order. 
Jn the Special LeavePetitions to this Court it was contended on behal! 
of the petitioners that the State Road Transport Corporation must eithel,' take 
recourse to the provisions contained in Chapter IV-A of the Act, which makes 
special provisions relating to State Transport Undertaking or otherwise if it 
wants to compete without recourse to chapter IV·A it must stand in competition 
with other applicants for allotment ·of stage carriage permits. Any preference 
that the State Road Transport Corporation may enjoy ln respect of all inter-
State route under sub·se~ion (1-H) is violative of Article 14 and the fundamen-
tal freedom to carry on trade under Article 19 (!) (g). Ssction 58 entitled tho 
petitioners to renewal of permit in preference to the ai)p~ication for grant of a 
new permit made by the State Transport Undertaking. 
·In.the connected Special Leave Pt":titions, it was contended on behalf of 
the petitioner that RU.le ISS-A of the'-Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules provides 
for a markillg systen;i uq_der different heads to objectively assess who is the best' 
suited for grant of the perrnit,.and consequently an ad hcc assignment of marks 
and failure to weed out the application -of the State Transport Corporation o:ri 
_the ground of disqualification for not providing night~halt cleanefs ·vitiated the 
decision of the Transport Authori.ty. 
Dismissing the .PCtitions. 
HELD : I. (i) Section 47 U-H) 
and hence would not offend Article 14. 
would not 
[4.:4-Ej 
deny equality before law 
' 
(ii) The Regional Transport Authority under section 47 upon ~judicious 
consi4eration of merits aitd demerits of every applicant must in a fair and 
reasonable nlanner decide~ who amongst the applicants wotilci. perform the duty
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.