MADAN MOHAN Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, Madan Mohan, applies for a writ for quashing an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 4th January, 1973, setting aside in appeal the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Indore, dated 19th February, 1972 by which the petitioner was granted a stage carriage permit on route Badwani-Alirajpur via Nisarpur, Dharamrai, Dahi, Sondhwa and Umrali, and granting instead the same to the respondent No. 3, M/s R. M. Brothers.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are as follows. THE Regional Transport Authority, Indore-hereinafter referred to as the Regional Transport Authority-by order dated 7th/8th May, 1968 lifted the ceiling over 142 routes in the Indore region under section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-hereinafter referred to as the Act-and decided to invite applications for grant of permits in respect of the same. On 24th May, 1968, the Regional Transport Authority accordingly issued a notification under sections 47 (3 ) and 57 (2) of the Act. THE said notification covered routes and areas failing within Schemes Nos. 16, 36, 47 and 53 which were approved under Chapter IV- A of the Act, and also covered other routes which did not fall within any of the approved schemes. One of the routes notified was the route Badwani-Alirajpur which had not been included in any approved scheme, and it was notified therein that there would be an increase in the number of vehicles plying on the route by one. In response to the same, the petitioner made an application for grant of a permit on 13th June, 1968. THE notification issued by the Regional Transport Authority was, however, struck down by this Court in THE Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. THE Regional Transport Authority, Indore (1969 M P L J 145.) on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to lift the ceiling in respect of an area or a route falling within a notified scheme, as no action could be taken in derogation of the scheme. Since the notification issued by the Regional Transport Authority affected routes which had fallen within approved scheme, this Court held that the notification as made could not stand and had to be quashed. It was, however, directed that it would be open to the Regional Transport Authority to issue a fresh notification restricting its operation to the areas and routes not falling within any approved scheme.

(3.) THE short question for consideration is whether the application dated 13th June, 1968 filed by the petitioner for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route in question "lapsed" with the quashing of the notification dated 24 May, 1968 issued by the R T A. THE view taken by the STAT to that effect ran hardly be supported. It proceeds on a complete misunderstanding of the decision in THE M. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. THE Regional Transport Authority, More (supra). THEre is a distinction between an order under section 47 (3) and a notification under section 57 (2) of the Act. An order under section 47 (3) need not be notified. THE notification was issued only because a public notice had to be given by the R T A that it had lifted the ceiling over the routes specified therein inviting applications for grant of permits in respect thereof. What was struck down by this Court was the notification under section 57 (2), and not the order under 47 (3) in so far as it was valid. A scheme made under Chapter IV- A of the Act has the force of law. Further, as a scheme is finally made by an order of the State Government approving it, it is also an "order" within the meaning of that word as it occurs in section 68-B and in terms of that section has effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of the Act. An approved scheme has thus the effect of overriding the powers of the R T A under Chapter IV in so far as those powers may be inconsistent with the scheme. Consequently, the Court held that it was not open to the R T A to have invited applications for permits or to have fixed any ceiling limit in respect of areas and routes and falling within the approved schemes, which were to be operated by the State Road Transport Corporation, and since the notification issued by the R T A affected such areas and routes which fell within the approved schemes, it could not stand and had to be quashed. While quashing the notification, the Court further observed that it would be open to the R T A to issue a fresh notification restricting its operation to the areas and routes not falling within any approved scheme. THE order under section 47 (3) was perfectly valid so far as it lifted the ceiling over routes not covered by any of the approved schemes. Admittedly, the route in question was not so covered and, therefore, the ceiling had been lifted, and there was additional scope for increasing the stage carriages by one. Thus, the application made by the petitioner for grant of a permit was valid and still subsisting.