TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court repelled the challenge. We would first deal with the principal challenge common to all petitions and then dispose of specific contention raised in other petitions clubbed together here. For representative facts we would refer to S.L.P. 6605/83. Re: S.L.P. No. 6605/83: Petitioner Sher Singh is the holder of a stage carriage permit on Behror-Rewari via Barrod, Shahjahanpur inter-State route. A portion of the route from Bahror to National Highway No. 8 via Barrod and Shahjahanpur 28 k.ms. in length passes through Rajasthan State and the rest of the portion of the route 22 K.ms. in length lies in Haryana State. It is thus an inter-State route. Petitioner holds 12 permits, for operating on the aforementioned route. Of the 12 permits, the period prescribed under 8 permits expired and the petitioner applied for the renewal of the permits under Sec. 58 of the Act. Regional Transport Authority granted renewal of the permits upto and inclusive of January 20, 1981. The petitioner again applied for renewal of the permits on December 29, 1980. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, fifth respondent ( Corporation for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be finally disposed of at this stage as the only question raised is one of law and no investigation of facts is necessary. A brief reference to the relevant provisions of the Act may help us in demarcating the contours of controversy with precision. Chapter IV of the Act contains provisions for control of transport vehicles. For regulating the transport business, a scheme for granting different types of permits has been statutorily prescribed. There are various kinds of permits contemplated by the Act such as stage carriage permit, contract carriage permit, all India tourist permit, special permit, permits for transport of goods etc. Various authorities have been constituted under the Act for the purpose of implementing the Act. Power has been conferred upon specific authorities for granting different kinds of permits. Sec. 47 prescribes procedure which the Regional Transport Authority has to follow while examining and deciding an application for stage carriage permit. Sec. 47 was specifically amended by Act 47 of 1978 which came into force on January 16,1979 By the Amending Act, sub-secs (1-A) to (1-H) were added to Sec. 47. The focus of controversy is on subsec. (1-H). Sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional Transport Authority must satisfy itself that the Corporation would be able to operate on the inter-State route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in any notified area or notified route as is referred to in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 68-D where the undertaking operates the service. At this stage, a reference to Sec. 58 would be useful. It provides for duration and renewal of stage carriage and contract carriage permits other than temporary permit granted under Sec. 62. An existing holder of permit may apply for renewal of permit. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 58 requires that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. There is a proviso to sub-sec. (2) which prescribes the time limit within which an application for renewal of different kinds of permits may be made. There is a second proviso which is material and which may be extracted: Provided further that other conditions being equal, an application for renewal shall be given preference over new applications for permits. Chapter IV-A was introduced in the Act by Amending Act 100 of 1956 which came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing alone is entitled to operate vehicles and therefore is entitled to obtain stage carriage permits both regular and temporary depending upon whether the scheme provides for total or partial exclusion of private operators. However, when an application for a permit is made under Chapter IV, the Undertaking has to compete with private operators who may as well make an application for permit. When the Undertaking applies for permit under Chapter IV, it must satisfy the Regional Transport Authority that it is better suited than the private operator to render transport facility to the travelling public. Sec. 47 (1-H) however, provides that in the case of inter-State route, the Undertaking will have preference in the matter of stage carriage permit. Does preference of this nature deny equality guaranteed by Art. 14 ? The expression preference amongst others means prior right, advantage, precedence etc. But how would it be possible to give precedence one over the other. It signifies that other things being equal, one will have preference over the others. When an application for a stage carriage permit is being processed as required by Sec. 47, the application of the Undertaking for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatis mutandis to the present situation. But let it be made clear that while considering the application for stage carriage permit under Sec. 47, the private operator has an equal chance to get a permit even on inter-State route if it shows that the Undertaking is either unable to provide efficient and economical service or that the private operator is better equipped to render the same. Preference in this context would mean that other things generally appearing to be qualitatively and quantitatively equal though not with mathematical accuracy, statutory provision will tilt the balance in favour of the Undertaking. Viewed from this perspective the provision contained in Sec. 47 (1-H) would not deny equality before law and hence would not effend Art. 14. The next contention was that Sec. 47 (1-H) is violative of Art. 19 (1) (g) in that it denies to the petitioner the fundamental freedom to carry on trade. There is no substance in this contention because the petitioner has not been denied his freedom to carry on trade. The petitioner is entitled to make an application under Chapter IV for a stage carriage permit and must compete with other private operators as also the Undertaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons for permits. What has surprised us the most is that while the petitioners have a serious grievance against the preference accorded to the Undertaking for a permit on the inter-State route under Sec. 47 (1-H), the same petitioner is keen to protect preference in favour of the renewal of a permit against a new applicant statutorily provided in Sec. 58. But Sec. 58 also manifests the legislative intention when it uses the expression preference with an adjectival clause that other conditions being equal , an application for renewal will have a preference over the new applications. The first submission in this behalf is that when an application is made for a renewal of a permit, it has to be considered only under Sec. 58 and the preference therein provided excludes any consideration of an application for a permit under Sec. 47. Approaching the matter from this angle, it was contended that as the present petitioner has made an application for the renewal of the permit, he should have been accorded preference as mandated by the second proviso to Sec. 58(2) over the fresh application of the Undertaking and consideration of the application of the renewal of the permit under Sec. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether an application for renewal or a new application shall be given preference over all other applications for renewal. Addition of this proviso merely makes explicit what was implicit in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 58. Nothing was pointed out to us to hold that the Rajasthan State Legislature lacked competence to add the aforementioned proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 58. Re: S.L.Ps. Nos. 9678 to 9680/82: In this group of petitions for special leave, it was contended before the High Court that as Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., the first respondent, did not make provision for night halt cleaners, the application for permits made by them were liable to be screened. The High Court declined to examine this contention on the short ground that this contention was not raised before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. For the same reason, we could as well have declined to examine this contention. However, it may as well be pointed out that even if the contention is to be examined on merits, there is no substance in it. The State of Tamil Nadu has framed what are styled as Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. Rule 155-A provides for a marking system under different heads to ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
