MIR AKRAM Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision is directed against the order of the state Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras-104 in Appeal No. 1057 of 1981 dated 30. 10. 1982, in which the order of the State Transport Authority, Madras was confirmed.

(2.) THE petitioner applied on 22. 10. 1977 for grant of counter-signature of permit in respect of his stage carriage MYA. 3525 to ply on the inter-state route from Bangalore to Hosur Cattle Farm, viz. , Attibelle and Hosur. THE State Transport Authority, karnataka issued a permit to the petitioner for plying the said carriage on the said route. So he filed an application for counter-signature. THE State transport Authority, Madras rejected the same on the ground that the route is entirely covered by draft scheme and there is a ban under Sec. 68 (F) (1d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No. 1057 of 1981 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras . THE Appellate Tribunal also concurred with the findings of the State Transport authority and rejected the appeal. Hence, the above revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner pursuant to the interim direction given by the court has been running the vehicle from 10. 7. 1986. Even if that be so, the petitioner cannot now take advantage of that position and seek to set aside the order of the Tribunal which amounts to granting variation contrary to the provisions. Even the operators who are operating the vehicle pending the proceedings, under the guise of interim orders passed by this Court are not protected under the Act 41 of 1992. Moreover, the Act 41 of 1992 itself is limited to a particular period referred to under Sec. 1 (3) of the Act and the over-ridding effect of the provisions of the Act equally confined to the said period. THErefore, the embargo of the prohibition contained under Chapter IV-A of the Old Act and Chapter VI of the New Act get automatically restored for the period subsequent to 30. 6. 1990 with the result the authorities would have no jurisdiction to grant, permit or renew or accord counter-signature or variation except in accordance with the main Act. THE provisions of the said Act cannot be construed to provide a permanent arrangement for all times to come and it is only in the context of the validation of orders granting permit, variations, modification, counter-signature period between 4. 6. 1976 and 30. 6. 1990.