LexYOGESHWAR JAISWAL, ETC, ETC. versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 0 790 YOGESHW AR JAISW AL, ETC, ETC. v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. January 31, 1985 [E.S. VENICATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUICHARJI, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act 1939 Sections 68C, 680 and 68F: Stage ca"fages of State Transport Undertaking-Exclusive operation of- Dra/t scheme published-No decision taken thereon by State Government for nine ve4rs-lncrecued transport facllitles-Need and necessity arising-Regional Transport Undertaking granting temporary permits-Action whether valid and fetal-Statutory duty Imposed by section 68C-Speedy exercise with due regard to public interest-N~ees1lty of. · Admlnistratl1e Law : Statutory duty-Delay in perforn1ance of-Abuse of process of law-To be remedied by Court. Practice and Proudure : F Motor Vehicle Permits-Grant of-Delay ;n-Performance of statutOry G dufJ..-duty af Court to enforce by issuance of writ. A notification dated November 17, 1971 was published under section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, inviting objections to a draft scheme providing for exclusive operation of stage carriages of the State Transport Undertaking over thirteen routes in a district. A~ the Regional Transport Authority felt that it was necessary to increase the strength of the stage carriage services of nine routes out of the thirteen routes covered by the said scheme, it decided by its order dated December 17, 1979 to invite applications for temporary carriage permits. This decision was taken after it bad allowed amalgamation and extension of certain existing permits he1d by 102 operators. Pursuant to this invitation by the Regional Transport Authority, a large number of persons including the appellants applied for the temporary permits. On January 10, 1980, the State trans- !'ort 11ndertaking having not made any ap!'lications uqder section 68F(I A) . ' , YOGBSHWAlt JAISWAL V. S.T.A. TdBUNAL 191· the application of the appellants and a large number of other persons about 800 were considered by the Regional Transport Authority and the appellants were granted nineteen temporary permits. · Some Operators who felt aggrieved by the resolutions of the RegiortB.l Transport Authority passed on December 17, 1979 and January 10, 1980 filed Revision Petitions before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated June 3, 1981 set aside both the resolutions dated December 17, 1979 and January 13, 1980 of the Regional Transport Autho- rity, on the ground that the amalgamation and extension of permits granted in favour of the existing operators, after the pubUcation of the scbem~ under section 68C was contrary to the provisions of Chapter IVA of the Act. The appeUants filed writ petitions which were dismissed by the High Court, which held that since the grant of temporary permits in favour of the clppellants was dependent upon the order dated December 17, 1979 to which the appellants were not parties, the temporary permits granted in their favour on January 10, 1980 were also liable to be set aside. Allowing the Appeals to this Court, HELD : 1. The order of the Tribunal and the order of the High Court to the extent they cancel the temporary permits in favour of the appellants are set aside. The appellants are permitted to operate their services under the tempo- rary permits issued to them under section 68F (tC) on January 10, 198J and the operation of the said temporary permi~s shall come to an end in accordance with law. [799E] 2. A direction is issued to the State Government to pass orders under section 68D (2) approving the scheme with or without any modification or rejec- ting it or to pass any other order thereon which it may under that provision on or before July 31, 1985. Such approved scheme shall be published under section 68D (3) on or before August 31, 1985. Failure to do so, the scheme published under section 68C shall stand quashed with effect from August 31, 1985. [799C·D] 3. (i) Both the Tribunal and the High Court overlooked the relevant issues affecting the public interest which should always be the guiding principle in deciding cases relating to grant of motor vehicles permits under the Act. [7988] (ii) The Tribunal and the High Court both failed to notice that the scheme had been published in the year 1971 and the order issuing temporary permits had been passed nearly nine years after its publication, after·the Regional Transport Authoritr was satisfied that there was necessity fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.