- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. M.A Egappan .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a State Transport Undertaking in Tamil Nadu, was authorised under an approved scheme dated 30 June 1976 (published under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) to run stage-carriage services on the route Madurai – Kumuli. The approved scheme expressly excluded all other operators except those listed in Annexure II, a list that did not include the respondent.
At the time the scheme was published, the respondent held a permit only on the non-scheme route Batlagundu – Usilampatti. He subsequently obtained:
- First variation (28 Feb 1981): extension from Usilampatti to Checkanurani (21.4 km), bringing him onto a sector of the notified route.
- Second variation (23 Dec 1982): further extension from Checkanurani to Madurai (16.6 km), completing a service over two sectors of the notified route.
The Regional Transport Authority granted both variations. An appeal against the second variation was dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court of Madras dismissed a revision (CRP No. 3117/1984). The appellant obtained special leave, leading to the present Supreme Court decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the publication of an approved scheme dated 30 June 1976 for the route Madurai – Kumuli bars the respondent from obtaining or acting upon a variation of his permit that overlaps any sector of that notified route.
- Whether Section 68-F(1-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 bars applications for variation of existing permits during the pendency of a draft scheme published under Section 68-C.
- On a true construction of the approved scheme, does the exclusion apply only to operators covering the entire Madurai – Kumuli route, or does it extend to operators who ply on any part or sector of that notified route?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The draft scheme published on 4 June 1976, still under consideration, and the approved scheme published on 30 June 1976 collectively bar any grant or variation of permits covering the notified route.
- Section 68-F(1-D) freezes the number of services once a draft scheme is published; a variation that adds sectors of the notified route is therefore prohibited.
- Sections 68-C, 68-D and 68-FF, read together, exclude all operators not named in Annexure II from any portion of the notified route.
Respondent's Arguments
- Relying on Karnataka SRTC v. B.A. Jayaram, an application to vary an existing permit is not an application for a “permit” or its “renewal” and hence falls outside Section 68-F(1-D).
- The approved scheme excludes only operators covering the entire Madurai – Kumuli route; operators on partial stretches or linking non-scheme routes with sectors of the notified route are not barred.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Karnataka SRTC v. B.A. Jayaram, 1984 Supp SCC 244 | An application for variation is deemed a new permit only for the limited purpose of following the procedural steps in Section 57(3)–(7); it is not regarded as a fresh permit on grant. | The High Court had relied on this decision to treat variation applications as outside Section 68-F(1-D). The Supreme Court disagreed with that interpretation, limiting the precedent to its procedural context. |
| Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P., (1985) 4 SCC 557 | Once a scheme is approved, no private operator may ply on the notified area/route or any portion thereof unless expressly permitted by the scheme. | The Court adopted this principle to hold that the respondent, not being named in Annexure II, cannot operate on any part of the Madurai – Kumuli route. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Scope of Section 68-F(1-D): The Court rejected the High Court’s narrow reading. The provision’s purpose is to freeze services on a route once a draft scheme is published; that policy applies equally to applications for variation that would add services on the notified route.
2. Effect of the Approved Scheme: Independent of the draft scheme, the approved scheme (30 June 1976) unequivocally excludes all operators other than those listed in Annexure II from any part of the Madurai – Kumuli route. The respondent is not protected by the scheme and thus cannot claim a right to operate, even on a sector.
3. Interpretation of “Route”: Relying on the Constitution Bench in Adarsh Travels, the Court held that “route” includes every portion thereof; hence, exclusion of operators applies to the whole and every part of the notified route.
4. Application to Present Facts: The respondent’s permit variations, although validly issued by the Regional Transport Authority, directly conflict with the statutory bar created by the approved scheme. Statutory supremacy overrides administrative orders, rendering the variations ineffective regarding the notified sectors.
5. Residual Relief: While disallowing operation on the notified sectors, the Court noted the respondent’s liberty to raise concerns before the authority still considering the draft scheme.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed. The respondent is restrained from operating his stage-carriage service on any sector of the notified Madurai – Kumuli route covered by the approved scheme.
Implications: The decision re-affirms that once a route is covered by an approved scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, private operators not expressly saved by the scheme cannot operate on any portion of that route, even by securing variations of pre-existing permits. The ruling does not create new precedent but fortifies the existing statutory interpretation laid down in Adarsh Travels.
E.S Venkataramiah, J.— The appellant is one of the State Transport Undertakings established in the State of Tamil Nadu. It has questioned in this appeal by special leave the decision of the High Court of Madras in CRP No. 3117 of 1984 affirming an order granting variation of a permit issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by virtue of which the respondent is permitted to run a stage carriage on the route between Checkanurani and Madurai which is a part of a notified route Madurai to Kumuli via Checkanurani, Valandur, Usilampatti and Theni. Before the High Court, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Regional Transport Authority the appellant had pleaded the publication of a draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Act on June 4, 1976 in respect of the route Madurai to Kumuli as a bar to the grant of a variation of the permit prayed for by the respondent. In this Court the appellant has relied upon the existence of an approved scheme published on June 30, 1976 in respect of the very same route Madurai to Kumuli also as a bar to the order of variation of permit granted in favour of the respondent. The route is common to both the draft scheme dated June 4, 1976 and the approved scheme dated June 30, 1976. We shall, however, consider the effect of the approved scheme on the order granting variation of the permit first.
2. The facts of the case are these. On June 30, 1976, as stated earlier, the approved scheme was published under Section 68-D of the Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in respect of the route Madurai to Kumuli authorising the appellant to run its stage carriages on that route. By that approved scheme it was proposed to exclude completely all other persons from operating their stage carriage services under permits covering the entire route, referred to above except those persons mentioned in Annexure II to the said scheme without prejudice to any future modifications, variations etc. of their permits. The operators whose names had been mentioned in Annexure II to the scheme were persons who were existing operators on the different sectors of the notified route on the date of the publication of the scheme. The respondent was not one of those persons who was running a stage carriage service on any part or sector of the route in question on the date of its publication. Hence, his name was not mentioned in Annexure II to the scheme. He was then operating a stage carriage service under a permit issued under the Act on the route Batlagundu to Usilampatti which was a non-scheme route. On February 28, 1981 he was able to secure the variation of the said permit from the Regional Transport Authority which enabled him to operate on the route measuring 21.4 kms from Usilampatti to Checkanurani, which formed a sector of the notified route. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed and no revision petition was filed against the order dismissing the said appeal. On December 23, 1982 he obtained from the Regional Transport Authority a second variation of his permit under which he was authorised to operate his stage carriage service over a distance of 16.6 kms from Checkanurani to Madurai which was also a part of the notified route. An appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. A revision petition was filed under Section 64-B of the Act (as in force in the State of Tamil Nadu) before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition. This appeal by special leave is filed against the above order of the High Court.
3. As mentioned earlier the appellant pleaded before the High Court that a draft scheme published on June 4, 1976 which was still in force was a bar to the grant of variation of the permit authorising the respondent to operate his stage carriage on a sector of the route in respect of which the scheme had been published. The High Court was of the view that Section 68-F(1-D) could not be considered as a bar for entertaining an application for the variation of a permit since such an application was neither an application for a permit nor for its renewal. In arriving at the said decision it relied upon Section 68-F(1-D) of the Act which read as follows:
“68-F(1-D) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (1-C), no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication, under Section 68-C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person for any class of road transport service in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme....”
4. It further relied upon a decision of this Court in Karnataka SRTC v. B.A Jayaram 1984 Supp SCC 244, AIR 1984 SC 790, (1984) 2 SCR 768. In that case this Court observed at p. 789 thus:
“Assuming, therefore, that an application for variation of the conditions of a permit referred to in sub-section (8) of Section 57 is to be deemed by a fiction of law to be an application for the grant of a new permit the question to which we must address ourselves is for what purpose is such an application for variation deemed to be an application for grant of a new permit. Reading sub-sections (3) to (8) of Section 57 as a whole, it is clear that the only purpose is to apply to such an application for variation the procedure prescribed by sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 57 and not for the purpose of providing that when the application for variation is granted, the permit so varied would be deemed to be a new permit. If a permit so varied were to be deemed to be a new permit, the result would be anomalous.”
From the above observation the High Court deduced that an application for the variation of a permit held by the respondent was not in fact an application for a permit and did not fall within the mischief of Section 68-F(1-D) of the Act. In the context in which Section 68-F(1-D) appears we find it difficult to agree that the application for variation of a permit by including the whole or any part of route in respect of which a scheme is published under Section 68-C of the Act can be treated as falling outside the mischief of Section 68-F(1-D) of the Act. There is no justification to limit the application of Section 68-F(1-D) of the Act to only applications for fresh permits or their renewal and to leave out applications for variation of a permit by the inclusion of the route or a portion of the route in respect of which a scheme is published. The fact that the applicant is the holder of a permit to operate a stage carriage on another route whose variation he is seeking by the inclusion of a route or a part thereof in respect of which a scheme is published under Section 68-C of the Act ought not to make any difference. The principle underlying Section 68-F(1-D) of the Act is that the number of services on such a route should be frozen on the publication of a scheme under Section 68-C of the Act. It is not, however, necessary for us to pursue the applicability of Section 68-F(1-D) of the Act in the present case any further since it is brought to our notice that the very same route is the subject-matter of the approved scheme published under Section 68-D of the Act on June 30, 1976 to which we have already adverted. The approved scheme, as mentioned earlier, excludes the operation by others of stage carriage services on the abovementioned route Madurai to Kumuli except those whose names are mentioned in Annexure II attached thereto. The respondent is not protected by any provision in the approved scheme itself. He cannot be permitted to operate on any sector of the notified route in question in view of the provisions contained in Sections 68-C, 68-D and 68-FF of the Act. The effect of these provisions has been summarised by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. (1985) 4 SCC 557 Chinnappa Reddy, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench observed at p. 566 (para 7) thus:
“7. A careful and diligent perusal of Section 68-C, Section 68-D(3) and Section 68-FF in the light of the definition of the expression ‘route’ in Section 2(28-A) appears to make it manifestly clear that once a scheme is published under Section 68-D in relation to any area of route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. A necessary consequence of these provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorised so to do by the terms of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified route or area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified route or area.”
5. In view of the above observation we have to hold that in the instant case the respondent is not entitled to operate his stage carriage on the notified route or a portion thereof even though he may have been granted variation of his permit to operate on a sector of the notified route.
6. We do not agree with the contention urged on behalf of the respondent that on a true construction of the scheme only persons who are operating their stage carriages under permits issued in respect of the entire route from Madurai to Kumuli alone have been excluded under the approved scheme and not those who are operating between any two places on the notified route or between any place lying outside the notified route and a place on the notified route even though they may be operating on a portion of the notified route. We are firmly of the view that on the entire notified route between Madurai and Kumuli or any part thereof apart from the State Transport Undertaking no person other than those mentioned in Annexure II to the approved scheme can operate a stage carriage service. We, therefore, direct the respondent not to operate his stage carriage on the sector in respect of which he has obtained the variation of his permit.
7. We are informed that the draft scheme published on June 4, 1976 is being considered by the authority concerned under Section 68-C of the Act. It is open to the respondent to make any representation which he is advised to make before the said authority regarding the inconvenience caused to him by reason of the approved scheme referred to above.
8. The above appeal is therefore, allowed accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
Alert