MALI RAM Vs. R T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE was a route Neem-ka-thana to Alwar, for which the petitioner has been granted a temporary permit, which was to run up to April 28, 1977.

(2.) A scheme for the route from Neem-ka-thana to Kotputli has been approved and notified under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Another draft scheme under Section 68-C has been prepared for the route -- Kotputli to Alwar. The said scheme has not yet been approved under Section 63-D. Respondent No. 2, the Rajasthan State roadways Transport Corporation, applied and obtained from the R. T. A. , respondent No. 1, temporary permit to ply its buses from Neem-ka-thana to alwar. After the grant of permit, the R. T. A. , by its order dated April 1, 1977, ordered that as permit has been granted to the Corporation, and as it will not be having two permits, the permit of the petitioner will cease to be effective as soon as the Corporation is given the second permit applied for and put the buses on the route. The petitioner has therefore felt aggrieved and has come up to this Court,

(3.) MR. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that no permit can be given to the Corporation for route from Neem-ka-thana to Alwar. Section 68ff puts a restriction on the grant of permit in respect of notified area. Proviso, however, permits the R. T. A. to grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such notified area, or route, if no application for the permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme. The Corporation has not yet applied to implement the scheme. Mr. Sharma urged that proviso to Section 68ff permits only a private operator to apply for the temporary permit but bars the State Transport Undertaking to apply for the temporary permit in the interval before the permit for the implementation of the scheme is issued. I am afraid I find no such support for such contention. The proviso provides that temporary permit be given to any person if the State Transport Undertaking has not applied for permit on this route. I can see no justification why the proviso would only permit a private operator to obtain a temporary permit and prohibit the State Transport Undertaking to that effect. As a matter of fact, there has been an amendment in the said Act by State Act No. 10 of 1974, which has added Sub-section 68 (1-AA) to Section 68-F, which provides that where State transport Undertaking applies for grant of temporary permit in respect of any route which comprises a notified area or route or portion thereof and any other route or area specified in any scheme published under Section 68-C, the R. T. A. or the S. T. A. shall issue temporary permit prayed for Sub-section (1-AA) of section 68-F therefore clearly permits that temporary permit can be given to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified route as well as a route covered by the draft scheme. No doubt, Mr. Sharma urges that Subsection (1-AA) of Section 68-F is void and beyond the competency of the State legislature. This argument, however, in order to succeed, necessarily assumes that proviso to Section 68-FF prohibits the State Transport Undertaking to obtain a temporary permit in respect of a notified route and consequently, the said State amendment being in violation of the Central provision would be bad. I have already said that in my opinion the proviso to Section 68-FF makes no such bar, and I, therefore, see no reason to hold Sub-section (1-AA) to Section 68-F to be void.