Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1965 DIGILAW 171 (RAJ)

Balaram v. Transport Appellate Tribunal

1965-09-09

JAGAT NARAYAN

body1965
JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution by one Balaram against an order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal holding that no appeal lies against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting permits to Lekhraj respondent No. 3 and Ram Prakash respondent No. 4 because they were dislodged operators to whom alternative permits were granted under sec. 68-G (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The petitioner is an existing operator on the Jaipur-Diggi-Deoli-Kekri route. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 were operators on the Jaipur-Tonk-Deoli route who were dislodged as their route was nationalised. They suo-moto filed applications for the grant of a permit on the Jaipur-Diggi-Deoli-Bhilwara route. These applications were published in the Gazette dated 12.7.62 under sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act and objections were invited. The petitioner filed an objection on 1.8.62. The applications of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and the objection of the petitioner were considered by the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on lst/2nd April, 1964 and permits were granted to the former by the order (anne-xure 1") the extract from which is reproduced below: "Having bestowed most earnest consideration and thought to the whole problem this Authority is of the opinion that the persons present pressing for the grant of alternative applications should be given alternative permits in order to save them from suffering from any further loss and let not their vehicles be idle as a result of nationalisation of routes. They are Prepared to give an undertaking in writing again that they have been offered these routes and they are prepared to accept them and will no longer claim any compensation, for their routes having been nationalised if they are given permits as applied for by them. .............................................................. ............................................................. Resolved therefore that the following applicants are granted alternative permits for the routes and permits given against their names to be effective for the peiod of the validity of their original permits on which they have not been able to run vehicles because of the scheme of the nationalisation, as per paras, dates, notification etc. given against their respective names: 4. Shri Lekhraj-Jaipur Bhilwara 6. Shri Ram Prakash-Jaipur-Bhilwara." 3. The petitioner filed an appeal against the grant of the above permits before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. given against their respective names: 4. Shri Lekhraj-Jaipur Bhilwara 6. Shri Ram Prakash-Jaipur-Bhilwara." 3. The petitioner filed an appeal against the grant of the above permits before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. This appeal was rejected by the following order: "The permit has been granted to the dislodged operators in lieu of their compensation to which they were entitled on the cancellation of their permit under sec. 68-F(2), merely because the R.T.A. did not follow this special procedure laid down in rule 9 of the Rajasthan Road Transport Services (Development) Rules. The order which has been passed under the provisions of Chapter IV-A cannot be an appealable order. The appeal is not maintainable and for this reason no further proceedings are therefore necessary. The appeal is consequently dismissed." 4. Against the above order the present writ petition has been filed. In order to understand the respective contentions of the parties it is necessary to notice some provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 5. Sec. 68-F (1) provides for the grant of a stage carriage permit to a State Transport Undertaking in respect of a route for which a scheme of road transport service of a State Transport Undertaking has been approved under sec. 68-D. 6. Sec. 68-F (2) empowers the Regional Transport Authority, for giving effect to the approved scheme, to pass any one or more of the following orders: (a) refuse to entertain any application for the renewal of any other permit, (b) cancel any existing permit, (c) modify the terms of any existing permit so as to— (i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date; (ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit; (iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route. Under sec. 68-G(l) the holder of a permit which has been cancelled or modified under the above provision is entitled to compensation. Sec. 68-G(2) lays down that no such compensation shall be payable if a permit for an alternative route is offered by the Regional Transport Authority and accepted by the holder of the permit which has been cancelled or modified under sec. 68-F(2). This sub-section runs as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. Sec. 68-G(2) lays down that no such compensation shall be payable if a permit for an alternative route is offered by the Regional Transport Authority and accepted by the holder of the permit which has been cancelled or modified under sec. 68-F(2). This sub-section runs as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), no compensation shall be payable on account of the cancellation of any existing permit or any modification of the terms thereof, when a permit for an alternative route or area in lieu thereof has been offered by the Regional Transport Authority and accepted by the holder of the permit." 7. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Gafoor vs. State of Rajasthan (1) that the above provision is only an enabling one, which does not authorise the Regional Transport Authority to issue a permit forthwith without hearing other parties which are not before it and whose rights are bound to be affected thereby. It was observed: "Since the grant of an alternative route affects the interest of persons already plying their buses on the route it cannot be assumed that the grant is an administrative act. Where third parties are affected, a lis comes into play and both on principles of natural justice as also under the provisions of law, their objections have to be heard before any alternative route can be granted to others." 8. In pursuance of the above judgment the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1960 wore amended by notification No F. 1(9)(20) HB. 1/62 dated November 20, 1962 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated Nov. 22, 1962, as follows: "After clause (c) of rule 9 of the said Rules, the following shall be inserted, namely: "(d) For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme, the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall forthwith cancel or modify or refuse to renew or make ineffective the existing permits in respect of the notified route or portion thereof and serve upon the holder of such permits notices to that effect: (e) Simultaneously with, or subsequently to, the issue of notice under clause (d), the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall, if it considers it proper and decides to offer to the holders of existing permits, an alternative route within the meaning of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 68(G) of the Act, in lieu of compensation payable under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 68(G) of the Act, in lieu of compensation payable under sub-sec. (1) of the said section, issue another notice to the holder of existing permits specify the alternative route which is so offered to them and requiring them to convey their acceptance thereof within a period of fortnight of the service of the notice on them. (f) In the case contemplated by clause (e) the Regional Transport Authority shall also publish a copy of the notice in the official Gazette calling upon the holders of existing permits for the proposed alternative routes to make representations in writing within 15 days of its publication, if any, in respect of the proposed offer. (g) Any representations received by the Regional Transport Authority in pursuance of clause (f) within the time limit specified there-under shall be taken into consideration by it and the authority may then pass such orders as it may deem fit. (h) Nothing contained in chapter IV of the Act in the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the proceedings taken under these rules. (i) All notices issued under clauses (d) and (e) shall, subject to the provision contained in clause (f), be served in the manner laid down in rule 10 as if they were orders made under chapter IV-A of the Act." Sec. 68-B runs as follows:— "Sec. 68-B. Chapter IV-A to override Chapter IV and other Laws—The provisions of this Chapter and rules and orders made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." 9. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that nothing contained in sec. 68-B or rule 9 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1960 as amended by notification dated November 20, 1962, takes away the right of appeal which the petitioner has under sec; 64. The contention on behalf of the contesting respondents on the other hand is that this right is taken away by rule 9 (h). The argument is that this sub-rule lays down that nothing contained in Chapter IV of the Act shall apply to the proceedings taken under rule 9 and as sec. The contention on behalf of the contesting respondents on the other hand is that this right is taken away by rule 9 (h). The argument is that this sub-rule lays down that nothing contained in Chapter IV of the Act shall apply to the proceedings taken under rule 9 and as sec. 64 falls in Chapter IV it is not applicable to the proceedings under rule 9 (e), (f) and (g). No appeal can lie against an order granting a permit for an alternative route to a dislodged operator under rule 9. An examination of Chapter IV shows however that it could not have been the intention of the framers of the rules that nothing contained in Chapter IV of the Act shall apply to a permit granted to a dislodged operator under rule 9. 10. The following provisions of Chapter IV must necessarily apply to a permit granted under rule 9:— (1) Sec. 42, which lays down that no owner of a transport vehicle shall use the vehicle save in accordance with the conditions of the permit. (2) Sec. 43 which gives power to the State Government to control road transport by issuing directions from time to time. (3) Sec. 44 which gives power to the State Transport Authority to issue certain directions. (4) Sec. 45 which lays down which Regional Transport Authority can grant a permit for a particular route. (5) Sec. 47 which lays down what consideration shall govern the grant of a stage carriage permit. (6) Sec. 48 which empowers the Regional Transport Authority to attach conditions to the permit, fix time-tables, fares etc. (7) Sec. 59 which lays down that a permit shall not be transferable except with the permission of the transport authority. (8) Sec. 60 which empowers the transport authority to cancel or suspend a permit. (9) Sec. 61 which enables the heir of a holder of a permit to ply the vehicle after his death for 3 months. 11. Sec. 63 which lays down that a permit granted for an inter-regional route shall be got counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the minor part of the route lies before the vehicle is used in that region. 12. 11. Sec. 63 which lays down that a permit granted for an inter-regional route shall be got counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the minor part of the route lies before the vehicle is used in that region. 12. The proper interpretation to be put on rule 9 (h) therefore is that nothing contained in Chapter IV of the Act shall apply to the proceedings taken under rule 9 about which provision has been made in that rule. 13. Rule 9 (e) provides for the offer of a permit to a dislodged operator by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. This dispenses with the necessity of filing an application for the grant of a permit under sec. 46. Rule 9(f) provides for the publication of the proposed offer for inviting objections and rule 9 (g) provides for the consideration of these objections. These provisions dispense with the necessity of undergoing the procedure prescribed under sec. 57. The provisions of the other sections contained in Chapter IV must be held to be applicable to the proceedings for the grant of an alternative route under rule 9 (e). That means that sec. 64 is applicable to the grant of a permit under rule 9 to a dislodged operator. 14. Some other arguments were also advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In view of my decision on the main question arising in the case, it is unnecessary to refer to them. 15. For reasons given above I allow the writ petition, set aside the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal and issue a direction to it to hear and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner under sec. 64 in accordance with law. 16. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition.