S KANNAN D P SHARMA SYED JALUDDIN AKBAR RAJENDRA BALLA KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED S HARNAM SINGH BASHA BAIG Vs. SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY:STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY:STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPOPRT AUTHORITY:UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants and petitioners in this group of appeals and special leave petition and writ petitions are persons who have obtained or were desirous of obtaining temporary tourist permits valid for the whole of India styled as 'All India Tourist Permit'.

(2.) The chronology of events leading to the appeals and writ petitions may be briefly stated. Sub-section (7) Was inserted in Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act for short) with effect from October 1, 1970 empowering State Transport Authority in each State, for the purpose of promoting tourism, to grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India, in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as the Central Government may, in respect of that State, specify in this behalf. The Central Government specified that the State Transport Authority in each State may grant permit as contemplated by Section 63 (7) not exceeding 50 in number. Armed with this power, the State Transport Authority of Karnataka State in all granted 36 such permits. There were thus 14 vacancies. It appears that several persons applied for temporary all India tourist permits to the State Transport Authority of Karnataka State. These applications for the permits were rejected and some of the applicants who were respondents Nos. 3 to 11 in the writ petition in the High Court and who are appellants in this Court preferred appeals to State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal purporting to exercise power under Section 62 of the Act granted temporary All India Tourist permits to them. Some of the holders of regular permits granted under S. 63 (7) of the Act filed writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka. By a common judgment the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, inter alia, on the ground that the grant of a permit under Sec. 63 (7) must be in accordance with the provisions of the various sections set out therein which does not include Section 62 under which alone temporary permit can be granted and therefore, grant of temporary permits for tourist vehicles of All India operation is not permissible. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari was issued quashing and setting aside the decision of the State Transport Appellate Authority. On the request of the present appellants, the High Court granted a certificate under Art. 134-A of the Constitution as in its view a substantial question of law of general importance, namely, whether a temporary permit can be granted in respect of a tourist vehicle for All India operation, does arise and further in its opinion the question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence some appeals by certificate.

(3.) Following the decision of the High Court, a large number of appeals pending before the State Transport Appellate Authority were dismissed and the appellants whose appeals were dismissed have approached this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Further a large number of writ petitions have been filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution questioning the correctness of The decision of various transport authorities refusing to grant temporary All India Tourist permits and praying for a writ of mandamus directing the State Transport Authority of various States to grant such permits. A further prayer in some of the writ petitions is to the effect that that part of sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 63 which enables the Central Government to prescribe a quota for each State in respect of All India Tourist permits, is violative of the Constitution and must be declared unconstitutional.