RAJENDRAN Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EKM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner can be described as a "fleet owner" in bus transport business since he was operating nine stage carriage services on different routes. As the period of permits of four stage carriages was Hearing expiry, petitioner applied for renewal of those permits. The applications were considered by the Regional Transport Authority (for short 'the Transport Authority') under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the next Act') and found that in view of S.71(4) of the new Act he is not entitled to get renewal of the permits. The Transport Authority pointed out another hurdle against the petitioner. Tahsildar of the locality had issued prohibitory orders against transfer of four vehicles of the petitioner and revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for arrears of tax in respect of some of his vehicles. Those developments dissuaded the Transport Authority from granting renewal in view of S.81(4) of the new Act. Applications for renewal were accordingly rejected. Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') challenging the order of the Transport Authority. The Tribunal held that S.71(4) of the new Act is not a bar since the original permits were granted under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the old Act'). Renewal of permit, according to the Tribunal, is entirely governed by S.81 of the new Act in which there is no such interdict. Referring to the decision in V.C.K. Bus Service v. R.T. Authority ( AIR 1957 SC 489 ) the Tribunal held that renewal is a continuation of the permit and hence the Transport Authority has to dispose of the applications for renewal uninhibited by any limitation contained in S.71(4) of the new Act. However, Tribunal further observed that the grounds enumerated in S.81(4)(b) of the new Act are not exhaustive but only illustrative. Tribunal set aside the order of the Transport Authority and directed it to dispose of the applications afresh in the light of he observations. The judgment of the Tribunal (Ext. P5) is challenged by the petitioner against its observation that the grounds enumerated in S.81 (4) of the new Act are only illustrative.

(2.) Third respondent is desirous of getting a regular stage carriage permit on one "the routes in question, in the vacancy which arises on account of non renewal of the permit of the petitioner. Third Respondent, being interested in seeing that the original order of the Transport Authority is maintained, filed another Original Petition for quashing Ext. P5 in so far as the said judgment saves the petitioner from the disability envisaged in S.71(4) of the new Act, Learned counsel for the third respondent supported the Tribunal's view that the grounds enumerated in S.81(4) of the new Act are only illustrative. Since common questions are involved, the two Original Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. (Petitioner in the first Original Petition is referred to as the petitioner and the petitioner in the second Original Petition is referred to as the third respondent).

(3.) Two points involved in these Original Petitions are: (1) Whether the grounds in S.81(4) of the new Act are exhaustive; (2) whether the applications for renewal are liable to be dismissed due to the interdict contained in S.71(4) of the new Act.