M GANGAPPA Vs. MYS REV APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a transport contractor. In this petition under Art.227 of the Constn, he challenges the legality qf the order of the, Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal by which the permit of the petitioner of the inter-State route from T.B.Dam to Ananthapur has been set aside.

(2.) The Govt of Karnataka notified a draft scheme under S.68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, here in after called the Act The said scheme which is popularly known as the Bellary Scheme, was approved providing for the operation of trunk routes by the State Transport undertaking (which I shall call as the 'Corporation'). The, scheme which was approved on 18-4-1964, was brought into force on 1-7-1965. Cl(d) of the Schedule attached to the said scheme provides :

(3.) The sole question for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the protection provided under Cl(d) of the Bellary Scheme when he sought for a new permit instead qf obtaining a renewal of his primary permit. The decision on the question turns on the scope, and meaning to be given to Cl(d) of the Bellary Scheme. When a question arises as to the interpretation to be put on an enactment, what the, Court has to do is to ascertain " the intent of them that make it" and that must of course be gathered from the words actually used in the statute. See Chamarbaug- wala v. Union of India. To arrive at the real meaning, says Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn page 18: " It is always necessary to get an exact conception of the aim, scope and object of the whole Act". If Cl(d) is clearly perused, it consists of two parts. By the first part, a monopoly is provided to the Corporation to operate its services on all the routes to the complete exclusion of other persons except in regard to the portions of inter-district routes lying outside; the limits of Bellary Dsit. The second part saves the existing permit holders on inter-State routes. Their right tq operate the services was preserved subject to, the condition that their permits shall be rendered ineffective by the competent authority for the overlapping portion in the Dist of Bellary. The aim and object of the said clause as it appears to me, is that the permit holders on the inter-State route on the commencement of the, bellary Scheme, should not be, deprived of their right to operate their services- The clause specifically provides that " they may continue) to, operate, such inter-State routes " subject to their permits being rendered ineffective, for the overlapping portion in the Dist of Bellary. The right to operate on the inter-State route was not limited to the currency of their existing permit, or was limited to any vehicle. It was a right preserved to the petitioner to operate on the inter-State, route. It was conceded by the, Counsel for the Corporation that petitioner could have continued to operate on the said inter-State route by obtaining successive renewals of his permits. When that much was conceded, I fail to see how that right was lost to the petitioner, when he applied for a new permit on the said route for want of renewal of-his original permit. Under the Act, there is no difference in the procedure for the renewal of a, permit and for the, grant of a new permit. S.58(2) provides that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a, permit. In other words, the application for a, renewal of a permit has to be desalt with just like any other application for a fresh permit. There may be competing applicants even at the time of the renewal. The relative merits of those, applicants have got to be considered by the authority before, it grants renewal to the original permit holder. Same is the. procedure provided for granting & new permit. If there are more than one application for a permit the relative merits of these applicants have also to be considered with the objections, if any, by others. Therefore, if the petitioner could operate on his inter- State route on obtaining a renewal of his original permit, I see no reason why he cannot operate on the said route by obtaining a new permit, since that right has been preserved to him under Cl(d) of the Bellary Scheme. The contention to the contrary urged by Counsel for the Corporation is not tejnable. The order of the, Tribunal, therefore, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.