9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Sec. 47 (1-H) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 2. Preference in renewal of permits under Sec. 58 3. Application of Rule 155-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules Summary: 1. Constitutional Validity of Sec. 47 (1-H) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: The primary issue in these petitions was the constitutional validity of Sec. 47 (1-H) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioners contended that Sec. 47 (1-H) is violative of Art. 14 and Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Sec. 47 (1-H) provides that an application for a stage carriage permit from a State Transport Undertaking for operating on any inter-State route shall be given preference over all other applications. The Court held that this preference does not violate Art. 14 as it ensures that the State Transport Undertaking, which is expected to provide better services, is given precedence. The Court also found no violation of Art. 19 (1) (g) as the petitioners are not denied their freedom to carry on trade; they must compete with the State Transport Undertaking, which is given preference only when other conditions are equal. 2. Preference in Renewal of Permits under Sec. 58: The petitioners argued that under Sec. 58, they are entitled to the renewal of their permits in preference to new applications, including those from the State Transport Undertaking. Sec. 58 (2) provides that an application for renewal shall be given preference over new applications for permits, other conditions being equal. The Court clarified that an application for renewal must be treated as if it were an application for a new permit, meaning it must be advertised and considered alongside new applications. The Court found no conflict between Sec. 47 (1-H) and Sec. 58 (2), stating that Sec. 47 (1-H) would also apply to renewal applications for inter-State routes. 3. Application of Rule 155-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules: In the petitions concerning the Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., the issue was whether the application for permits should be screened out due to the lack of provision for night halt cleaners. The High Court did not examine this contention as it was not raised before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Supreme Court also found no substance in this contention, noting that Rule 155-A provides a marking system to objectively assess applicants and that the assignment of 5 marks to State Transport Undertakings is valid. The Court upheld the Transport Authority's decision to refuse renewal of permits to the petitioners in comparison to the State Transport Undertaking. Conclusion: All the petitions were dismissed, and the Court found no substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. The constitutional validity of Sec. 47 (1-H) was upheld, and the preference for renewal of permits under Sec. 58 was clarified to include consideration of new applications. The application of Rule 155-A was also upheld, affirming the validity of assigning marks to State Transport Undertakings.
|
