SATYA DEO Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. The question of law that looms for consideration in the bunch of writ petitions aforestated, is, whether regular stage carriage permit granted and issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short the 'old Act') can be renewed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'new Act') and since the material facts giving rise to these petitions are quintescentially the same, these petitions have been lumped together for decision by a common judgment with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) WITH a view to appreciating the controversy it would be worthwhile to delineate in brief, the facts of writ petition No. 26349 of 1995 which is anointed for convenience, as the leading case. The petitioner, therein, was granted regular stage carriage permit (Permit No. 602-A) m the year 1954 for a route known as Somna-Khair-Gomat Morh-Nau Jheel. A part of the said route from Khair to Gomat Morh, as would be evident from the sketch map (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) overlapped the Nationalised route known as Aligarh-Khair-Tappal. The period for which the petitioner's permit aforestated was last renewed under the old Act expired after 1. 7. 1989 i. e. after the enforcement of the new Act but it was renewed, as alleged in para 2 of the Suppl. Affidavit, on 15th July, 1994. In the meantime, the third respondent, Sri Munendra Pratap Singh had moved an application on 21. 7. 1986 for grant of a new permit under the old Act. The application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority (for short the Authority) vide order dated 19. 11. 1990 with liberty to apply afresh for grant of permit under the new Act. The order dated 19. 11. 1990 was, however, set aside by the-State Transport Appellate Tribunal (In short the Tribunal') and the application for grant of permit allowed for the route in question vide order dated 27. 7. 1992. The actual permit, however, could not be issued because of interim stay orders dated 22. 12. 1989 and 6. 2. 1992 passed in writ petition Nos. 24824 of 1989 and 607/ (LB)/92 respectively. These petitions have since been dismissed and stay orders discharged vide judgments and orders dated 26. 3. 93 and 21. 10. 94 respectively. The third respondent, therefore, approached the Authority' for issuance of permit pursuant to the Tribunal's order dated 27. 7. 92 The Secretary to the Authority vide his order dated 16. 11. 94 directed issuance of permit on the basis of the Tribunal's order dated 27. 7. 92. The petitioner Satya Deo preferred a revision which the Tribunal dismissed, vide order dated 28. 8,1995, holding that it was not maintainable on the grounds firstly, that the revisionist was not an existing operator under a valid permit and, therefore, could not be characterised as an aggrieved person if the permit was issued to another person and, secondly, that the issue of permit by the Secretary to the Authority pursuant to the Tribunal's order dated 27. 7. 92 "was a clerical act" and "does not amount to an order of R. T. A. ". Aggrieved, the petitioner Satya Deo has approached this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16. 11. 94 and 28. 8. 1995 passed by the Secretary to the Authority and the Tribunal respectively. Similarly, orders passed in similarly circumstances are under challenge in the other connected writ petitions.

(3.) SECTION 81 of the new Act provides for duration of renewal of permit. The terms and conditions subject to which the permit can be granted under the new Act are altogether new not comprehended by SECTION 58 of the old Act. For example, proviso to SECTION 71 inhibits grant of permit for a route of 50 Kms. or less in favour of any person other than "individual' or "state Transport Undertaking". There was no such inhibition under the old Act. True, as urged by Sri L. P. Nathani, the Supreme Court in Secretary Quilon District Motor Transport Workers' Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) was concerned with a case where the permit-holder was a society and the route for which stage carriage permit was granted, was a route of "50 Kms. or less" and therefore, the renewal of such a permit was impermissible in view of express inhibition contained in the proviso to SECTION 71 of the new Act, but in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Quilon's case (supra) the condition precedent for renewal after the enforcement of the new Act "is that initial, grant of permit must be under the Act" except possible a case covered by the pronouncement of the Apex Court in S. S. Gurucharan Baldeo Singh v. Yashwant Singh and others. AIR 1992 SC 180 : JT 1991 (6) SC 256), which in my opinion, may be pressed into service subject to fulfilment of terms and conditions comprehended for grant of permit under the new Act. In that case application for renewal was pending on the date of commencement of the new Act and the grant of renewal of permit sought for was not inhibited by the new Act and therefore, it was held that a right already accrued or acquired under the old Act could be enforced under the new Act.