1961 (12) TMI 103 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the appeals before the Appeal Board.
2. The legality of the renewal of permits by the Regional Transport Authority.
3. The impact of a notified scheme on the renewal of permits.
4. The distinction between "route" and "road" under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of the Appeals Before the Appeal Board:
The appellants challenged the orders of the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority, which set aside the renewal of their permits granted by the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority. The Rajya Transport, Bihar, filed appeals against the renewal of permits in some cases where it had not initially objected. The competency of these appeals was questioned on two grounds:
- In cases where the Rajya Transport, Bihar, had not objected initially, it was argued that it had no locus standi to file appeals.
- In cases where it had objected, it was contended that the Road Transport Corporation could not legally represent the Rajya Transport, Bihar, in the appeals.

The High Court held that the Rajya Transport, Bihar, was competent to prosecute the appeals before the Appeal Board. The Court noted that the Appeal Board had the authority to revise the orders of the Regional Transport Authority under Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allows the State Transport Authority to call for records and pass orders if the initial order is improper or illegal.

2. The Legality of the Renewal of Permits by the Regional Transport Authority:
The Regional Transport Authority renewed the permits of the appellants, holding that the route 'AB' was different from the routes for which renewal was demanded. However, the High Court held that the Regional Transport Authority was not competent to grant a renewal as it violated the scheme approved by the State Government and published in the Official Gazette. The High Court opined that under Section 68F(2)(c)(iii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Regional Transport Authority could curtail the length of the route covered by the permit and exclude the portion that overlapped a notified route.

3. The Impact of a Notified Scheme on the Renewal of Permits:
The Supreme Court referenced the case of Abdul Gafoor v. State of Mysore, where it was stated that when a scheme is notified under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Regional Transport Authority must refuse a permit to a private operator if the State Transport Undertaking has applied for or been granted a permit on that route. Since the State Transport Undertaking had already been granted a permit over route 'AB', the Regional Transport Authority was bound to refuse the renewal of permits that included route 'AB'. The duty of the Regional Transport Authority was described as "merely mechanical," required to conform to the notified scheme.

4. The Distinction Between "Route" and "Road" Under the Motor Vehicles Act:
The appellants argued that the notified route 'AB' was different from the routes for which renewal was demanded, even though route 'AB' might have been a portion of the "road" traversed by their omnibuses. They relied on the distinction made by the Privy Council in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co., Ltd. v. Colombo-Ratnapura Omnibus Co., Ltd., where "route" was considered an abstract line of travel distinct from the physical "road." However, the Supreme Court noted that this distinction could not be applied to the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court observed that under Section 68F(2)(c)(iii), the Regional Transport Authority could curtail the area or route covered by the permit, indicating that the distinction between "route" and "road" disappears in the context of the Act. The intention of Chapter IVA was to exclude private operators from running over certain sectors or routes vested in State Transport Undertakings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, concluding that the appellants were not entitled to the renewal of their permits over routes that included the notified route 'AB'. The Regional Transport Authority was found incompetent to grant such renewals, and the Appeal Board was within its rights to set aside the orders of the Regional Transport Authority. The appeals were dismissed, and no order was made regarding costs.