LexTMT. T.P.K. THILAGAVATHY versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
TMT. T.P.K. THILAGAVATHY
v.
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
NOVEMBER29, 1994
B
[A.M. AHMADI, C.J., R.M. SAHAI AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992-
Provisions prohibiting grant of any permit overlapping whole or part of the
notified route after 3 0. 6. 90 held valid.
C
S.10-1nterpretation of-Held-Could not be interpreted to enable
grant of permits even after 30.6.90 upto the date of publication of the Act
i.e. 31. 7.92. Grant of permit after 30.6.90-Legality of-Such permits even
though granted on consent memo, held, rightly quashed by the High Court.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Prohibition of grant of any
D
permit overlapping whole or part of notified route after 30th June 1990-
Creating two classes among small operators-Cut off date-Held, not
violative of.
E
F
G
H
The appellants, private stage carriage operators to whom permits
had been granted between 1976 and 1990 for plying either on intra or
inter state routes, were excluded from operating on any part of the
nationalised routes after the addition of chapter IV-A in the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1936; Chapter IV-A framed various schemes in 1976
nationalising different routes. But State Transport Authority issued
new permits and renewed existing ones for bifurcated and traversed
part of the notified route. State Undertaking challenged this action of
ST A before the High Court and the permits which overlapped even a
portion of nationalised routes were declared invalid. This decision was
challenged in this court by Pandiayan Roadways* and the decision of
High Court was upheld and permits granted for such routes were held
invalid. This rendered approximately 4000 permits invalid. To meet
this situation State issued Government Order No. 2222 of 87 and
introduced a legislative bill for renewal of permits of such holders, but
the bill was not passed. In the meantime Motor Vehicles Act 1936 was
repealed by Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988) in which
•
Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Thiru MA. Egappan, AIR (1987) SC 958
= {1987) 2 SCR 391.
180
T.P.K. THILAGAVATHYv. REGNL. TPT. AUTH.
181
Chapter VI contained similar provisions of Chapter IV-A of old Act. A
The new Act came into force on 1st July, 1989 and it permitted pending
schemes to be published and approved within one year i.e. on or before
30th June 1990, on expiry of which it was to lapse. Government in the
wake of interpretation placed by this Court in Pandiyan Roadways,
issued G.O. No. 1794 and 1990 withdrawing its earlier order of 87, and
an ordinance repealing the legislative assembly bill.
B
The writ petition, which was filed by the small operators against
=-
this was dismissed by the court and Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle (Special
provisions) Repeal Act, 1991 was passed repealing the Legislative
Assembly Bill. The Operators approached this Court in which an
interim order was passed. The State Legislature enacted the impugned C
Act which came into force on 31st July, 1992. The Act placed complete
embargo on issue of fresh permits after 30th June, 1990 as it provided
that sections 1 to 5 and 8 to 11 were deemed to have come into force on
4th June, 1976 and ceased to be in force on 30th June, 1990.
Its validity was challenged as violative of Article 14 for creating D
two classes among small operators - one, those to whom permits had
been granted on or before 30th June, 1990 and others to whom permits
were issued after 30th June, 1990, by taking 30th June, 1990 as cut-off
date which was arbitrary and against legislative objective and purpose.
High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that the cut-off date E
was rational and prohibition in the Act against grant of any new permit
was valid. Hence, these appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1.1. From the statement of objects and reasons and the F
provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that the Legislature
intended, in public interest, to remove the sudden hardship to common
public due to decision rendered by this Court in Pandiyan Roadways.
But the State Legislature having accepted the interpretation placed by
this Court in Pandiyan Roadways, except for those to whom permits
were granted earlier, the appellants cannot claim to be treated G
similarly and placed in that class of operators who were granted
permits before 1st July, 1990. The State Legislature, in keeping with
the decisiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.