Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from a common judgment of the Madras High Court in civil revision petitions concerning the grant of a stage carriage permit for the route from Coimbatore to Kottur. The appellant, a State Transport Undertaking in Tamil Nadu, and respondent No.2, a private operator, both claimed the permit. The Regional Transport Authority applied its marking system and awarded the permit to the appellant with 11 marks, against respondent No.2 who secured 6 marks; consequently the renewal application of respondent No.2 was rejected. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissed respondent No.2's appeal and upheld the grant of the permit to the appellant, finding it to be in the public interest. During the pendency of the revision before the Madras High Court, interim orders allowed both parties to operate on the route, and by the time of the High Court's judgment on 28 August 1990, respondent No.2 had been plying for about ten years alongside the appellant. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision, relying on M. Chinnaswamy v. Dhandayuthanpani Roadways and observing that the travelling public had become accustomed to the pattern of service and that it should not be disturbed lightly; the High Court directed that status quo continue, effectively permitting both parties to ply their stage carriages on the same route despite only one permit being available. Aggrieved by this, the appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred because only one permit was to be issued and the comparative marks clearly favoured the appellant; mere passage of time and public habit due to interim orders could not justify granting two permits. The appellant also pointed out that the decision in M. Chinnaswamy was a consent order and that the later decision in S.V. Sivaswami v. Motor Transport (Firm) had expressly disapproved such orders as being contrary to Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which requires the Regional Transport Authority to determine the number of stage carriages before granting permits and forbids granting permits in excess without a fresh determination. The respondent No.2 relied on Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992, claiming that its renewed permit up to 6 November 1996 was deemed valid. The Supreme Court, after examining the provisions, held that Section 10 only validates orders that were validly made under the old Act and does not cure an initially invalid permit. It accepted the reasoning in Sivaswami that a permit grant is not a lis between private claimants but must primarily serve the interests of the general public, and that an order permitting both claimants to operate cannot be made unless the grant to both would be within the limit fixed by the Regional Transport Authority. Since the Regional Transport Authority and the Tribunal had determined that only one permit was available and the appellant had higher marks, the High Court's direction to maintain status quo was legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court, and restored the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 31 March 1982 granting the permit to the appellant. The appellant was also held entitled to costs throughout.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Law - Stage Carriage Permits - Comparative Marks and Public Interest - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 47(3) - The Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Appellate Tribunal granted the sole stage carriage permit to the appellant because it secured 11 marks against 6 marks of respondent No.2. The Madras High Court set aside that order and allowed both operators to continue on the route, relying on M. Chinnaswamy v. Dhandayuthanpani Roadways and the fact that the travelling public had become accustomed to the service for ten years due to interim orders. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction was contrary to Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which requires the Regional Transport Authority to first determine the number of stage carriages and then grant permits within that limit; a permit cannot be granted in excess without fresh determination. The Court further held that a permit grant is not a mere lis between private claimants but primarily concerns public interest, and mere continued operation under interim orders does not confer a right to both parties to ply on a single permit route. Held that the High Court erred and the Tribunal's order granting the permit to the appellant on higher marks was correct. (Paras not mentioned) B) Motor Vehicles Law - Renewal of Permit - Validation Clause - Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992, Section 10 - The respondent No.2 contended that its permit had been renewed up to 6.11.1996 and Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 protected that renewal because all orders granting permits or renewals during the period 4.6.1976 to the date of publication of that Act were deemed valid. The Supreme Court held that Section 10 only validates orders that were validly made under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and does not cure an initially invalid permit. Since respondent No.2 had secured only 6 marks and there was only one permit for the route, the Regional Transport Authority and Tribunal had rightly refused renewal. Held that Section 10 could not assist respondent No.2 to claim a permit that was not validly granted. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Madras High Court erred in directing both the appellant and respondent No.2 to operate stage carriages on the same route when only one permit was to be granted and the appellant had obtained higher marks; and whether Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 validated the respondent No.2's renewed permit.
Final Decision
The appeals were allowed; the judgment of the Madras High Court in the civil revision petitions was set aside; the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 31 March 1982 was restored; the appellant was held entitled to costs throughout.
Law Points
- Grant of stage carriage permit must primarily serve public interest
- Under Section 47(3) of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1939
- Regional Transport Authority must first determine number of stage carriages and cannot grant permit in excess without fresh determination
- Comparative marks system is valid criterion
- Mere fact that travelling public accustomed to service due to interim orders is no ground to allow both operators when only one permit exists
- A consent order cannot be extended without consent and legal basis
- Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act
- 1992 does not validate initially invalid permits
- Interim orders permitting both parties to operate do not create legal right to permit
