Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the grant of a stage carriage permit for an inter-State route between Chitradurga in Mysore State and Srisaila in Andhra Pradesh to the appellant, a transport operator, by the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga on January 18, 1964. Before this grant, the Government of Mysore had notified a draft scheme under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, proposing operation of trunk routes by the State Transport Undertaking in Bellary District. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (M.S.R.T.C.) and other rival claimants objected, but their objections were overruled. The Mysore Government approved the scheme under Section 68D(3) on April 18, 1964, and published it as the Bellary scheme on May 7, 1964. The scheme provided for complete exclusion of private operators on notified routes except portions of inter-district routes outside Bellary District, and permitted existing permit holders on inter-State routes to continue subject to rendering their permits ineffective for overlapping portions within Bellary District. On July 28, 1964, M.S.R.T.C. applied for permits under Section 68F for the nationalised routes. The appellant had not yet obtained the countersignature required under Section 63(1) from the Andhra Pradesh RTA. The Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissed M.S.R.T.C.'s appeal on November 2, 1964, but M.S.R.T.C. appealed to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal on December 9, 1964. During pendency, the appellant obtained countersignature on June 23, 1965, and his permit was renewed in June 1967 and countersigned again. On July 30, 1970, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal allowed M.S.R.T.C.'s appeal and set aside the appellant's grant, holding that the appellant was not an existing permit holder as on the relevant date. The appellant's writ petition under Article 226 was dismissed by the Mysore High Court on August 10, 1971. He then appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the appellant was an existing permit holder under the Bellary scheme, whether the scheme became effective only after an order under Section 68F(2), whether the partial exclusion allowed only partial cancellation, and whether the Revenue Appellate Tribunal had power to cancel. The appellant argued that the scheme was implemented only on July 1, 1965 when M.S.R.T.C. was granted a permit, and that his countersignature on June 23, 1965 made him an existing permit holder before that date. He also argued that the scheme involved only partial exclusion and thus the RTA could only render his permit ineffective for the Bellary portion, not cancel it entirely, and that the Revenue Appellate Tribunal lacked cancellation power. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. It held that an approved scheme becomes final upon publication in the Official Gazette and requires no further order under Section 68F(2) to become effective. The relevant date for determining existing permit holder status is the date on which the State Transport Undertaking applies under Section 68F(1), which was July 28, 1964. On that date, the appellant had not obtained the countersignature from the Andhra Pradesh RTA, and thus could not be considered an existing permit holder on the inter-State route. The Court noted that the Bellary scheme saved only existing permit holders on inter-State routes, not all permit holders, and that countersignature was essential to that status. Although the Court agreed that the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal lacked power to cancel the permit under Section 68F(2) and that only the RTA could do so, it held that the RTA's function was merely ministerial and its failure to act initially was due to pending appeals and stay orders. The technical error by the appellate tribunal did not entitle the appellant to relief. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Law - Approved Scheme - Effective Date and Reference Date - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 68C, 68D(3), 68F(1), 68F(2) - An approved scheme becomes final upon publication in the Official Gazette and does not require a subsequent order under Section 68F(2) to become effective; the date on which the State Transport Undertaking applies under Section 68F(1) is the reference date for determining 'existing permit holder' status. Held that the Bellary scheme was effective upon publication on May 7, 1964, and the relevant date was July 28, 1964, when M.S.R.T.C. applied for permits. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Motor Vehicles Law - Existing Permit Holder on Inter-State Route - Countersignature Requirement - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 63(1), 68F(1) - A transport operator cannot be considered an existing permit holder on an inter-State route unless the permit has been countersigned by the concerned Regional Transport Authority of the other State; mere grant by the home State RTA is insufficient. Held that the appellant lacked countersignature as of July 28, 1964, and therefore was not an existing permit holder saved by the Bellary scheme. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Motor Vehicles Law - Scope of Exclusion Under Approved Scheme - Partial Exclusion vs Total Exclusion - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 68C, 68F(2) - The Bellary scheme saved only existing permit holders on inter-State routes and provided for complete exclusion on notified routes except portions outside Bellary District; it did not protect new or uncountersigned permit holders. Held that since the appellant was not an existing permit holder on the inter-State route, he was not entitled to continue operations, and the Revenue Appellate Tribunal's substantive finding was correct. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Motor Vehicles Law - Power to Cancel Permit - Competent Authority and Ministerial Function - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 68F(2) - Cancellation of an existing permit under Section 68F(2) can only be done by the concerned Regional Transport Authority; the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal lacked power to cancel the permit. Held that the RTA's failure to act initially was due to pending appeals and stay orders; the RTA's function under Section 68F is merely ministerial, and on this technical ground alone the appellant cannot succeed. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was an existing permit holder on an inter-State route under the Bellary scheme; whether the scheme became effective only after an order under Section 68F(2); whether partial exclusion under the scheme allowed only partial cancellation of appellant's permit; whether Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to cancel the permit
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Mysore High Court's decision and confirmed that the appellant was not an existing permit holder under the Bellary scheme. Although the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal lacked power to cancel the permit, the appellant could not succeed on that technical ground because the Regional Transport Authority's function under Section 68F(2) was ministerial and the substantive outcome remained correct.
Law Points
- An approved scheme under Section 68D(3) Motor Vehicles Act 1939 becomes final on publication and does not require separate implementation order
- the date of application under Section 68F(1) is reference date for existing permit holder
- existing permit holder on inter-State route must have permit countersigned under Section 63(1)
- cancellation under Section 68F(2) can only be by Regional Transport Authority
- RTA's function under Section 68F is ministerial
- failure of appellate tribunal to observe power is technical and does not alter substantive result
