AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—While Writ Appeal Nos. 1954 to 1961 of 2002 have been preferred by the appellants, who are the applicants for grant
of stage carriage permits, against the order of a learned single Judge, dated 21.12.2001, setting aside the order of the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Madras, dated 08.06.1993, directing for grant of permits in favour of the appellants, W.A. Nos. 2771 to 2774 of 2003 are preferred by
the objectors/private existing operators against the order of another learned single Judge, dated 03.07.2000, dismissing the writ petitions to set
aside the very same order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 08.06.1993.
Though all these Writ Appeals involve a common question of law, as they are divided and preferred against two contra decisions, it is proper to
segregate these appeals into two categories, while giving disposal.
In the first category, let us decide W.A. Nos. 1954 to 1961 of 2002. Of these cases, W.A. No. 1960 of 2003 is taken for reference. In this
case, the appellant had applied for grant of a stage carriage permit in respect of the route Kumarapalayam to Edapadi under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, in short, ""the Act"", before the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, at Namakkal. The route falls under the classification of ordinary
stage carriage service, as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in short, ""the Rules"". The route applied for overlaps on
the approved scheme in respect of the route Edapadi Bus Stand to Kumarapayalam, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated
22.06.1990, which scheme was challenged before this Court along with other approved schemes and all the schemes were struck down by a
Division Bench of this Court, aggrieved over which, Anna Transport Corporation, along with its sister transport undertakings, preferred Special
Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions, the Apex Court, in a case arising from the State of
Rajasthan, involving identical question of law, took a contra view to that of this Court and impliedly overruled the said judgment. Thereafter, the
Regional Transport Authority, taking into account the fact that the grant route applied for overlaps on the approved scheme route, rejected the
application, by its order, dated 19.05.1992. Anguished over the said order of the authority, the appellant preferred an appeal on the file of the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Pending the said appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, by an
order dated 16.04.1993 and, consequently, the schemes were restored. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that the schemes relied upon
by the Corporation did not affect the grant route applied for by the appellant, as that being mofussil service, whereas the scheme contemplated
town service. On that ground, the Tribunal directed the authority to grant permit in favour of the appellant. The said direction was challenged by the
Corporation and also the private operators/objectors in the Writ Petitions.
The learned single Judge, after analysing Rule 3 Sub-rules (e)(i)(p) as regards ""City and Town Service"", ""express service"" and ""ordinary service
and holding that there was no classification of service as mofussil either under the Act or under the Rules and that the permit sought to be granted
overlapped on an approved scheme route, allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Hence, these appeals, at the instance
of the applicants.
Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the draft and approved schemes and nationalisation have always made a clear distinction
between express buses, mofussil buses and city or town buses; there cannot be a town service route for more than 30 kms. and one of the termini
has to be inside a notified town area; the seating capacity of the vehicles is also hugely different since the town services provide for carrying almost
85 passengers including standing passengers and that the word ''ordinary'' does not mean moffusil buses. It is also his contention that there is a
difference between mofussil and town services; the scheme is intended only for plying ordinary services as per clause 3 and clause 6 shows that the
State Transport Undertaking is intending to run only town services but not mofussil services; Edapadi to Kumarapalayam is an ordinary town
service route only and, hence, the findings of the learned single Judge with regard to the interpretation of the scheme are erroneous and against the
settled law on the subject. In his last limb of contentions, the learned Counsel would submit that the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has taken away the
right of the existing operators to file objections and the purpose of enacting the Act was to liberalise the grant of permits. The learned Counsel
would cite a decision of the Supreme Court in Mithlesh Rani and others Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun and others, , wherein it was
held as under:
A perusal of the said paragraph would show that the expression ""allied routes"" referred to the extensions of the route concerned therein. The
said expression cannot take in the route concerned herein. No route-map was also filed in the said writ petition from which it can be said that the
allied routes"" mentioned in the said writ petition included the route in question herein....In such a situation, there could not have been any objection
to the grant of permits to the appellants on the said route....
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents would vehemently argue that these appeals were pending on the date of notification of
the Special Act and the route applied for overlapped the notified route; therefore, once the grant route overlapped on such notified route, on the
teeth of Section 7 of the State Act viz., Special Act, the appeals automatically stood abated irrespective of the terms of the scheme; the word
''mofussil'' had been stated in the format of the old scheme prescribed under the repealed rules and the word ''ordinary'' is not found in that scheme
and consequently in the absence of mofussil service in the present rule and format prescribed thereunder, it cannot be said that the word ''ordinary''
denotes only an ordinary service within the town and it does not exclude mofussil service. The learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this
Court a decision of the Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Regional Transport Authority and Another, , wherein it was held as follows:
The object of the Scheme appears to be to nationalise the entire service. Through nationalisation of the service, effort is to provide better
service to the commuters at cheaper cost. One of the exceptions to the Scheme is for existing town services operating on the notified routes. The
reason for which appears to be that the existing town services need not be disturbed so that the commuters do not suffer.
In our view, under Exception 2 contained in the note appended to the Scheme, subject-matter of the present appeals, permits can be issued
only to existing town services operating on the notified routes. This means only existing operators on the notified routes are eligible for permits.
Fresh applicants or future applicants are totally ineligible for getting permits for town services operating on notified routes....
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.
There is no classification of service as ""mofussil"" either under the Act or under the Rules and the permit sought to be granted overlapped on an
approved scheme route. For the scheme Kumarapalayam to Edapadi, the portion of route that overlapped is Kumarapalayama to Annamarkoil.
Section 103(2) of the Act reads as under:
For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or as the case
may be, the Regional Transport Authority concerned may, by order.
(a) refuse to entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any other permit or reject any such application as may be pending.
The above provision would clearly indicate that where there is an approved scheme already existing in respect of a notified area or notified
route, the Regional Transport Authority may refuse to entertain the application for grant of permit or reject any such application. The same has
exactly happened in these cases. In other words, as there is an approved scheme already existing in respect of the notified route viz.,
Kumarapalayam to Edipadi, the Regional Transport Authority has rejected the application of the appellant for grant of permit, which cannot be
found fault with.
It is equally relevant to extract Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, popularly known as Tamil Nadu Act 41
of 1992, in short, ""the Special Act"", which reads thus:
Pending applications and appeals for grant of new permits to abate.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force,
every application for grant of new permit on a notified route and all appeals arising therefrom or relating thereto, made or preferred before the date
of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, and pending before any court, with any officer, authority or tribunal constituted
under the Motor Vehicles Act, on the said date, shall abate.
From the above provision, it is manifest that every application for grant of new permit on a notified route and all appeals, arising therefrom or
relating thereto, made or preferred before the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and pending before any
Court or with any officer, authority or tribunal, on the said date, shall stand abated.
The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992, received the assent of the President on 31.07.1992 and the same was
published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on the same day. So, on the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette, the appeal filed by the
appellant was pending. In addition, the grant route applied for overlapped on the notified route. As such, on the date of enactment of this Special
Act, the appeal filed by the appellant was hit by Section 7. Further, on the date when the appeal was heard by the Tribunal i.e., 08.06.1993, there
was no appeal pending in the eye of law, as the same stood abated on the date of notification of the Special Act. This Special Act is meant for
stage carriage service and when it contemplates any route covered by an approved scheme route, whether it is town or ordinary or express, no
class of service can be granted on such approved schemes. That being the legal position, the Tribunal committed an error in directing for grant of
permit on the notified route, on the strength of classification of services within the stage carriage.
It is also quite appropriate to quote Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Special Act, which runs as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no new permit shall be granted under this Act to any person on any route covered by an approved
scheme.
It is needless to mention that the Special Act prevails over the General Act. The above provision also makes evident that no new permit shall
be granted under the Special Act to any person on any route covered by an approved scheme, as, admittedly, the route in question is a notified
route and covered by the approved scheme. Therefore, there cannot be two permits on one particular notified route, covered by the scheme.
The permits sought for by the private operators in the present case cannot be equated with special permits envisaged u/s 88(8) of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988. The object of granting special permits is totally different. Special permits are meant to cater to special needs of the public on
special occasions like marriage parties, pilgrimage etc. In other words, the permits sought for by the private operators are stage carriage permits
for general purpose and not for a particular purpose or occasion. Were the permits sought for special in nature, the situation would have been
different.
Though the case of Mithilesh Rani was cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant to show that the Supreme Court was not inclined to
entertain the objections raised by the private operators, it is not applicable to the case on hand, for the reason, that, pursuant to the said decision,
the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act was enacted, which prohibited the grant of new permits.
Similarly, the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents in APSRTC''s case to the effect that only existing operators on the
notified routes are eligible for permits and fresh applicants or future applicants are totally ineligible for getting permits for town services operating on
notified routes does not bind this Court because, in that case, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court arrived at such a decision, based on
exception 2, contained in the note appended to the scheme, which was categorical that the scheme should not affect the existing town services
operating on the notified routes.
In view of the above statutory provisions, observations and findings, these Writ Appeals fail and are dismissed, confirming the order of the
learned single Judge. No costs.
Following the dismissal of the above Writ Appeals, the second category of cases viz., W.A. Nos. 2771 to 2774 of 2003 stand allowed,
setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. No costs.