Mir Akram vs State Transport Authority and Others

K. Govindarajan, J.—The above revision is directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras-104 in Appeal

No. 1057 of 1981 dated 30.10.1982, in which the order of the State Transport Authority, Madras was confirmed.

The petitioner applied on 22.10.1977 for grant of counter-signature of permit in respect of his stage carriage MYA.3525 to ply on the inter-

state route from Bangalore to Hosur Cattle Farm, viz., Attibelle and Hosur. The State Transport Authority, Karnataka issued a permit to the

petitioner for plying the said carriage on the said route. So he filed an application for counter-signature. The State Transport Authority, Madras

rejected the same on the ground that the route is entirely covered by draft scheme and there is a ban u/s 68(F)(1D) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No. 1057 of 1981 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal,

Madras. The Appellate Tribunal also concurred with the findings of the State Transport Authority and rejected the appeal. Hence, the above

revision.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the prohibition u/s 68(F)(1D) of the Motor Vehicles Act is only against the

grant of new permits and not against the counter-signature. Such submission cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Apex Court in R.

Raghuram Vs. P. Jayarama Naidu and Others, , wherein, it has been held as follows:

Even when the scheme provides that an existing operator is exempted from the operation of the scheme it only means that he can continue to

operate his service with the existing number of trips on the date on which the scheme is published and it does authorise him to apply for a variation

of his permit so that he can increase the number of trips on the overlapping portion of the notified route thus increasing the burden of private

operation of vehicles on the notified route in question. The variation authorising increasing the number of trips in fact amounts to granting of a fresh

permit to run one more stage carriage service doing one round trip on the notified route and that would be violation of the scheme itself because the

scheme protects only the number of trips which were being operated at the time to its publication.

As held in the above decision any variation or increase of number of trips amounts to grant of new permit. The route in question is admittedly not

covered by any existing inter-state agreement between the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Section 68(F)(1D) of the said Act provided that

except in respect of contingencies visualised under Sub-sec.(1A) or (1D), any permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening

between the date of publication u/s 68(C) of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme in favour of any person

for any class of road transport service in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme. The said provision imposes a ban

on the grant of any permit on the publication of the approved scheme except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. So it is very clear

that the abovesaid provisions exclude totally any operator from outside the State other than those of the State Transport undertakings or those

permitted under the inter-state agreement or scheme itself. The petitioner cannot claim any benefit under the scheme. So he would fall within the

category of excluded person.

While construing the similar issue, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.331 of 1994 etc., dated 29.6.1994, has held as follows:

Thus on a reading of the provision of the scheme, as pointed out above, we are of the view that overlapping of the notified route is not permissible.

Even the saved operator also cannot claim such a right to have an addition to the existing route overlapping the route included in the scheme as his

permit is saved only to the extent mentioned in the scheme for the purpose of maintaining the continuity of the existing service on the route or the

area not covered by the scheme and the duration.

Such persons also are not protected under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 also. I seek aid in support of my conclusion to the

decisions in W.A.No.331 of 1994 etc., dated 29.6.1994 in which it is held as follows:

One more contention urged on behalf of the grantee required to be considered, it is contended that in the light of the provisions contained in

Section 6 of Act 41 of 1992 (Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992). In spite of the provisions contained in the approved

scheme, as the permit holder in question is a small operator, she is entitled to grant of variation of the conditions of the permit. It may be pointed

out that it is the Pondicherry State Transport Authority, which has granted the permit to K.R. Sriramulu and Brothers, who has transferred the

permit to the third-respondent. It is the Pondicherry State Transport Authority which has to grant the variation to the conditions of the permit. Act

41 of 1992 does not apply to the Union Territory of Pondicherry. As such, the State Transport Authority of Pondicherry cannot also avail the

provisions contained in Section 6(1) of the Act 41 of 1992. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 331 of

1994 is entitled to avail the benefits of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner pursuant to the interim direction given by the Court has been

running the vehicle from 10.7.1986. Even if that be so, the petitioner cannot now take advantage of that position and seek to set aside the order of

the Tribunal which amounts to granting variation contrary to the provisions. Even the operators who are operating the vehicle pending the

proceedings, under the guise of interim orders passed by this Court are not protected under the Act 41 of 1992. Moreover, the Act 41 of 1992

itself is limited to a particular period referred to u/s 1(3) of the Act and the over-ridding effect of the provisions of the Act equally confined to the

said period. Therefore, the embargo of the prohibition contained under Chapter IV-A of the Old Act and Chapter VI of the New Act get

automatically restored for the period subsequent to 30.6.1990 with the result the authorities would have no jurisdiction to grant, permit or renew or

accord counter-signature or variation except in accordance with the main Act. The provisions of the said Act cannot be construed to provide a

permanent arrangement for all times to come and it is only in the context of the validation of orders granting permit, variations, modification,

counter-signature period between 4.6.1976 and 30.6.1990.

Hence, I am of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the

counter-signature as prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted, cannot be said to be bad in law. Hence, this revision is dismissed. No costs.