9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the conditions of a permit can be varied to increase the number of trips and/or vehicles allowed under that permit. 2. Whether the conditions of a permit held by an existing operator on an inter-State route exempted under the Kolar Pocket Scheme can be varied to allow an increase in the number of vehicles operating under that permit. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Variation of Permit Conditions to Increase Trips and/or Vehicles The primary question was whether the conditions of a permit could be varied to increase the number of trips or vehicles allowed under that permit. The Supreme Court analyzed the interpretation of sub-section (8) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which states that an application to vary the conditions of a permit "shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit." The Court clarified that this provision does not create a legal fiction that results in the grant of a new permit but rather prescribes that the procedure for considering such an application should be the same as that for a new permit. The Court emphasized that the language of sub-section (8) does not indicate the creation of a legal fiction. Instead, it aims to ensure that the procedural requirements for varying permit conditions are as stringent as those for granting new permits. The Court cited previous judgments, including the case of "East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v Finsbury Borough Council," to support its interpretation that the legal fiction, if any, is limited to procedural aspects and does not extend to deeming the varied permit as a new permit. Issue 2: Variation of Permit Conditions under the Kolar Pocket Scheme The second issue was whether the conditions of a permit held by an existing operator on an inter-State route exempted under the Kolar Pocket Scheme could be varied to allow an increase in the number of vehicles. The Kolar Pocket Scheme nationalized passenger transport services on certain routes but allowed existing inter-State permit holders to continue operating on inter-State routes, provided their permits were rendered ineffective for overlapping portions of the notified routes. The Court found that increasing the number of trips or vehicles on inter-State routes was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Kolar Pocket Scheme. The Scheme's primary restriction was that existing permit holders could not pick up or set down passengers on the overlapping portions of the notified routes. Therefore, the Court concluded that the variation in the number of trips or vehicles did not affect the Scheme's objective and was permissible. Conclusion and Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision, which allowed the variation of the permit conditions to increase the number of trips or vehicles. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the procedural requirements under sub-section (8) of Section 57 were met, and the variations did not amount to the grant of a new permit. The Court also noted that the variations were not inconsistent with the Kolar Pocket Scheme. The appeal was dismissed, and the costs were awarded to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, while Respondent No. 4 was directed to bear his own costs.
|
