K A NATARAJAN Vs. M NAINA MOHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN respect of a new route from Paramakudi to Madurai covering a distance of 49 miles, applications were called for under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and there were 35 applicants for the said route. After consideration of the various applications, the R. T. A. granted the permit to the first respondent herein, on 23-11-1966. An appeal to the State transport Appellate Tribunal having failed, the matter was taken to this court by way of a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed and the grant in favour of the first respondent was set aside. However, in writ appeal the order of the state Transport Appellate tribunal was restored. Subsequently, the matter wag taken to the Supreme Court in C. A. No. 98 of 1975 and the Supreme Court has remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal, by order dated 237-1975. By that time there was a draft scheme notified under Section 68-C of the Act on 4-6-1976, for the identical route and the permit issued in favour of the first respondent had also been renewed on 14-7-1976 for a period of three years.

(2.) WHEN the appeal was taken up for fresh hearing by the State Transport appellate Tribunal on 13-9-1076, in pursuance of the remit order passed by the supreme Court, the first respondent contended that the appeal before the tribunal is not maintainable for the reason that a draft scheme had been notifed under Section 68-C, that in between the date of publication of the draft scheme and the date of the approval of the scheme there is no scope for considering the grant of a permit or renewal thereof, that there being a statutory bar under Section 68-F (ID) of the Act, the Tribunal cannot go into the question as to whether the appellant could be granted a permit for the route which is covered by a draft scheme and that, therefore, the appeal itself is not maintainable. The Tribunal upheld the said objection as to the maintainability of the appeal after publication of the draft notification holding that inasmuch as the draft scheme had been framed for the identical route, any order In favour of the appellant will definitely run counter to the statutory bar contained in section 68-F (ID) of the Act that therefore, the Tribunal, will be incompetent to pass any order in favour of the appellant and as such the appeal cannot be entertained. The said decision of the Tribunal has been challenged in this revision by the petitioner herein appellant before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the Tribunal is in error in holding that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the draft scheme, that the effect of an order in favour of the appellant may not amount to grant of a fresh patta which alone is prohibited by Section 68-F (ID), that allowing of the appeal by the tribunal will only amount to substitution of its order in the place of the order of the Regional Transport authority, that the Tribunal, by allowing the appeal is not making any fresh grant of permit, that any order passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal will only date back to the order of the Regional Transport authority and that having regard to the object of Section 68-F (ID) which is to see that no new vehicle is introduced on the route, the consideration of the appeal by the Tribunal is not prohibited by the issue of a draft scheme. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the draft scheme is not approved under Section 68-D, the dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable would have deprived the appellant of a valid right of competing for a permit, as there is no provision for restoration of the appeal in the event of the scheme not being approved.