BRIJ BAHADUR LAL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Ap peal has been filed against the judg ment of a learned Single Judge dismis sing a writ petition filed by the appel lant. The appellant. Brii Bahadur Lal, held a regular stage carriage permit on Panari-Sitapur route which was to ex pire on May 28, 1970. Before that date, however, a scheme was published by the State Transport Undertaking under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for nationalizing that route. The appellant applied for renewal of his permit on November 17. 1969 and the Regional Transport Authority by its resolution dated April 24. 1970 renewed the per mit for three years with effect from May 29. 1970. The scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act as afore said was approved and the said scheme as approved was published on August 29. 1970 as required by Section 68-D (3) of the Act. On the scheme being so published the Regional Transport Au thority cancelled the appellant's per mit on September 12. 1970 and subse quently granted him a compensatory permit vide its resolution dated Janu ary 10/11, 1972 on Jhansi-Mahoba route. On this route. Noor Mohammad, res pondent No. 3 held a temporary permit which was due to expire on May 31, 1972. He had also applied for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on this route which was pending on Janu ary 10/11. 1972. the date on which the appellant was granted a compensatory permit on this route. The said Noor Mohammad filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant of the compensatory permit to the appellant. The Tribunal allowed the revision of Noor Moham mad on June 2. 1972 and quashed the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated January 10/11. 1972 aforesaid. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Aggrieved Brij Bahadur Lal has filed this Special Appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the ap pellant has made three submissions:-

(3.) WE are therefore, of opinion that the words 'for a limited period' in the proviso to sub-section (1-D) of Sec tion 68-F mean the period which synchronizes with the publication of the notification of the approved scheme under Section 68-D (3) of the Act and even if the period mentioned in the renewed permit goes beyond the date of such publication the renewed permit ceases to be effective on the date of such publication. Thereafter it can be treated as void. It does not remain an existing permit nor does it require any cancellation under sub-section (2) of Section 68-F.