KAN SINGH Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of the above mentioned 12 special appeals, which involve for decision a common question, which is the main controversy in these appeals.

(2.) THESE petitions relate to the routes Bhadra -Hissar via Adampur, Hanumangarh -Dabwalia via Sangaria, Bhadra -Hissar via Balsamand and Rajgarh -Hissar via Jhunpa. The contention of the petitioners in all the petitions, which have been dismissed giving rise to these appeals, was that the petitioners should be granted renewal of their permits since the State Transport Undertaking could not be granted any permit due to the prohibition contained in the proviso to Sub -section (1 -H) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). All these routes are inter -State routes and Sub -section (1 -H) of Section 47 provides that a State Transport Undertaking shall be given preference over all other applicants while granting stage carriage permit for operating in any inter -State route. The proviso there in then lays down that the State Transport Undertaking shall not be granted permit under this Sub -section unless the authority is satisfied about the fulfillment of the condition contained in the proviso It is really the meaning of the words laying down the condition on the fulfillment of which preferential grant in favour of the Transport Undertaking can be made for operating in any inter -State route which is in dispute. Thus, the meaning of the proviso to Sub -section (1 -H) of Section 47 is the real question for decision in these appeals No other facts are material for deciding this question except that the authority has held that the State Transport Under taking fulfilled the condition laid down in the proviso it is entitled to be given preference over all these petitioners in grant of the stage carriage permit for operating in the aforesaid inter -State routes. The Regional Transport Authority as well as the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and thereafter the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions have all taken this view.

(3.) AS earlier stated the real controversy is about the meaning of the proviso to Sub -section (1 -H) of Section 47. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that this proviso requires satisfaction of the authority that the State Transport Undertaking is adequately and efficiently discharging its entire responsibility for providing road transport service in all the notified routes as contemplated under all the approved scheme published under Section 68 -D(3) of the Act. In other words, the argument is that unless the authority is satisfied that the State Transport Undertaking is efficiently and adequately providing road transport service on every route covered by each and every approved scheme published under Section 68 -D till then it cannot be granted the permit under Sub -section (1 -H) of Section 47 in preference over all other applicants. On this basis it is urged that an enquiry is contemplated for deciding whether this full responsibility of the State Transport Undertaking is being discharged under each and every approved scheme in respect of every route covered thereunder and it is only after this fact is found proved by the authority that such preference can be given to the State Transport Undertaking It is also contended that in the absence of such a finding by the authority, there is a complete bar to the grant in favour of the State Transport Undertaking by virtue of the proviso to Sub -section (1 -H) of Section 47. It was urged that no such enquiry having been made, nor any such clear finding being recorded, the preferential grant in favour of the State Transport Undertaking is invalid. In reply learned Counsel for the State Transport Undertaking contended that the only condition prescribed by the proviso is the satisfaction of the authority that the State Transport Undertaking would be able to operate the inter -State route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in any notified route etc which it is operating at that time or in other words without detriment to the existing operation by the State Transport Undertaking on the notified routes and no more. Learned Counsel also contended that it would be sufficient to show that the operation in the inter -State route would be without utilising the resources from any notified route where the State Transport Undertaking is at that time operating the service. In our opinion, the contention of learned Counsel for the State Transport Under taking has to be accepted.