DHANNA SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 580 of 1974. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise an interesting question as to the construction of Sub-section (1-C) of Section 68f of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The relevant facts are that the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, which is a State Transport undertaking under Chapter IV-A of the Act, prepared Scheme No. 38 which was published under Section 68-C on 12th February 1965. The scheme covers the route Gwalior to Bhander via Daura, Detia and Unnao. Dhanna Singh, who is petitioner in M. P. No. 219 of 19. 74 and respondent No. 2 in M. P. No. 580 of 1974, first obtained a regular permit for this route on 16th March 1970 from the Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior. This grant was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on 20th February 1972 being in contravention of Section 68-F (1-D) on an appeal preferred by Dharam Singh, who is petitioner in M. P. No. 580 of 1974 and an intervener in M. P. No. 219 of 1971 Subsequently, Dhanna Singh was able to secure a temporary permit for four months on this route on 16th September 1973 from the Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior. Dhanna Singh's contention, however, was that fixation of a period of four months was illegal and that the permit should have been made effective under Section 68-F (1-C) till the issue of a permit to the State Transport Corporation on that route. Dhanna Singh, therefore, filed a revision which was dismissed on 3th January 1974. Dharam Singh was aggrieved by the grant of the temporary permit to Dhanna Singh and he filed M. P. No. 751 of 1973 for challenging the grant. This petition was dismissed as infructuous on 31st January 1974, as by that time the permit had expired. On 3rd January 1974 another temporary permit was issued to Dhanna Singh for four months. Dhanna Singh then filed M. P. No. 219 of 1974. His contention in this petition is the same as in the earlier revision that fixation of duration of the permit as four months is illegal being contrary to the terms of Section 68-F (1-C) and the permit should have been issued to him to be effective till the grant of a permit to the State Transport Corporation. Dharam Singh applied to intervene in this petition and his application was allowed and so he is an intervener in this petition. On 19th April 1974 Dhanna Singh, as a matter of abundant caution, again applied for a temporary permit. On this application he was again granted a temporary permit for four months on 7th May. 1974. This grant has been challenged by Dharam Singh in M. P. No. 580 of 1974.

(2.) THE argument of Shri V. S. Dabir, learned counsel appearing for Dhanna Singh is that provisions of Section 62 are inapplicable to a temporary permit granted under Sub-section (1-C) of Section 68-F, that the sub-section itself provides the period for which the permit is to remain effective, and that every temporary permit under the subsection will continue to be effective until the grant of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking. The learned Advocate General who appears for Dharam Singh, on the other hand, contends that the maximum limit of four months for temporary permits laid down by Section 62 applies to a temporary permit granted under Sub-section (1-C), that A temporary permit under the sub-section is subject to such conditions as the authority granting the permit may think fit to impose and that a condition as to duration of the permit can be imposed, even without recourse to Section 62, under this power conferred by the sub-section.

(3.) THE fasciae of Sub-sections (1-A) to (1-D) was introduced in Section 68-F by the Amending Act 56 of 1969. The legal position prior to the introduction of these sub-sections was that publication of a scheme under Section 68-C did not prevent the grant or renewal of permits under Chapter IV on any area or route covered by the scheme. It was only after publication of the approved scheme under Section 68-D that applications for grant or renewal of permits in contravention of the scheme could be refused by the Transport Authorities. Grant or renewal of a permit after the publication of a scheme under Section 68-C at times created complications, for such permits could not be mentioned for cancellation, in the scheme and, therefore, could not be affected even by the approved scheme; [baluram v. State of M. P. 1967 MPLJ 539 = (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 130)]. This difficulty in implementation of a nationalisation scheme is remedied by introduction of these sub-sections in Section 68-F. The object behind them is to prohibit grant or renewal of permits on areas or routes covered by a scheme after its publication under Section 68-C and to make provision for grant of temporary permits to the State Transport Undertaking or in its absence to any other operator to meet the need of travelling public for the period intervening the publication of a scheme under Section 68-C and the publication of the approved scheme under Section 68-D. The note on the relevant clause of the Bill explains the object of the sub-sections as follows: