GOPALAN Vs. S T A T TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of 3 routes nationalised under Chap.4A of the Motor Vehicles Act, renewals of permit were sought by the appellants and were granted by the Transport Authorities concerned. The District Transport Officers who objected to the renewals of permits preferred appeals before the State: Transport Appellate Tribunal, which were rejected as not maintainable. They then moved O. P. No. 2237, 2238 & 2239 of 1963, under Art.226 of the Constitution, to quash the orders of the S.T.A.T. and they have been allowed by Govindan Nair, J. by one judgment, which is challenged in these three appeals by the respective operators.

(2.) The only question here is whether an order to renew a permit is appealable under S.64 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That Section reads:

(3.) Counsel relied on The Central Provinces Transport Services, Jabalpur v. State Transport Authority, Bombay (ILR 1961 Bombay 174) where occurs an observation: From the language used in Clause.(a), (e) and (f) of this section it would be clear that the Legislature has deliberately drawn a distinction between grant of a permit and renewal of a permit. There the appellant PTS had not objected to the grant of a permit to its rival CPTS and therefore could not appeal under clause (f) of S.64. The observation as to the distinction between grant of a permit and the renewal of a permit was obiter. It may be noted that in spite of drawing the distinction in the early part of the judgment their Lordships appear to have reckoned both as identical as they observed in the later part of the judgment: Assuming, however, that an appeal could have been brought even by a person in the position of PTS, such an appeal could not lie unless the PTS had preferred an objection to the grant of permit to the CPTS. In point of fact, no such objection was preferred by the PTS. The word grant in this passage can only mean renewal as the application of the CPTS and the order thereon were for renewal only.