9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be deemed to authorise the Commissioner to prohibit the use of any place in the city by the State Government as a stand solely for motor vehicles belonging to the Transport Department of the State Government. There remains no iota of doubt that the legislature has conferred power on the Corporation to take necessary action for public convenience and make provisions for the cart-stand which includes the motor vehicles. The exception carved out by a proviso to Section 285-A of the Act does not remotely suggest that the legislature has even conceived of any other body like MTCL, which is a State undertaking, to even construct the bus shelters. What has been engrafted in the proviso to Section 285-A of the Act is that the Corporation or its agent cannot prohibit the use of any place in the city to be used for motor vehicles belonging to Transport Department of the State Government as a stand - 285-A of the Act has to be read in juxtaposition with Section 285 of the Act and by no stretch of suggestion, it can be read to include bus shelters. The word stand has to be understood as per the common meaning given to it. That apart, the text, context and the pattern of use of words do sug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeals characterizes series of collusive concessions, maladroit misrepresentations, designed negotiations and infusion of fraud on financial morality; and further epitomises how statutory Corporations can cultivate the proclivity to give indecent burial to their interests, which is fundamentally collective interest that the Corporations are duty bound to protect, preserve and assert for. That apart, this bunch also exposes, as we have painfully penned, how the State, the protector of the interest of the citizens, has constantly maintained sphinx-like silence and also for some unfathomable reason, dexterously ignored the financial misdeeds as a colossal mute spectator. It seems all have either eloquently or silently competed with each other to write the epitaph of law. But, a pregnant one, there is a watch-dog, the Petitioner in Writ Petition(C) No. 223/2009, despite being wedded to individual interest, thought it apposite to uncurtain the machinations adopted by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 and the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. (MTCL) which had filed SLP(C) No. 16908/2006 against K.S. Kumar Raja and Anr. and later on chose not to press the same. The painfully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erection and maintenance of bus shelters in Chennai city was being dealt with by the MTCL and, therefore, he should approach the said authority. It was contended before the High Court that it was obligation of the Corporation to provide bus shelters for the convenience of commuters. It was averred that initially various bus stops were identified and allotted on first come, first serve basis and consequently for the successful tenderer, permission was also granted to erect shelters under the royalty scheme. The writ Petitioner had submitted an application to the Respondent Corporation for allotment of specified location for establishment of shelters but the same did not evoke any response. The reminders also fell on deaf ears. Being aggrieved by the said non-response, he had approached the High Court in W.P. No. 26890/2003 seeking a direction to the Corporation to consider his representation and the High Court had directed the Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the representation within a specific period. Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, the Corporation on 7.11.2003 informed him that the construction and maintenance of a shelter in Chennai city was being dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnai shall call for tenders from intending sponsors: (iii) The Corporation Council is also entitled to resolve to allow Metropolitan Transport Corporation to locate bus shelters and maintain the same and in such an event, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation would identify the locations and erect bus shelters on the basis of the terms and conditions imposed by the Council. (iv) The above exercise, viz., to identify the location and advertise on its own or empower the Metropolitan Transport Corporation to erect the bus shelters, shall be implemented by the Corporation, on or before the end of December 2006. (v) Till such time, the Petitioners viz., the sponsors are entitled to continue their activities in relation to the shelters established, subject to payment of Rs. 49,500/- per shelter for one module of 20 x 4 size shelters and a sum of Rs. 99,000/- for the second module consists of 40 x 4 shelters. (vi) The above said amount shall be paid to the Corporation of Chennai entirely in advance along with a copy of this order. On such payment, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai shall allow the Petitioner to continue their business till the end of December 2006. (vii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in SLP (C) No. 276/07 and I.A. No. 2/08 in SLP(C) 852/07, wherein it has been mentioned that the matter has been settled between the parties, the terms whereof are filed in the form of Memo, annexed to the said applications, we disposed of both these Special Leave Petitions by the following order. The Memos signed by the Petitioner and the Respondent Metropolitan Transport Corporation duly supported by the affidavit of the Petitioner and the affidavit of Shri Ramasubramaniam, Managing Director of Metropolitan Transport Corporation, filed in the connected SLP(C) No. 16908 of 2006, are taken on record and these Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in terms of the said memos. The parties shall bear their own costs in these proceedings. SLP (C) No. 16908/06 filed by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai, Limited, is also taken up for consideration along with I.A. No. 2/08 filed therein. In view of the Order passed hereinabove in the earlier two Special Leave Petitions, no orders are necessary in this Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly and the question of law raised in the petition is left open for decision in appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a in SLP(C) No. 16908/2006, 276/2007 and 852/2007 MTCL agrees to allot 500 Nos. of bus shelters to the concessionaire for erection/re-erection of the shelters of International standard for the benefit of the waiting bus passengers and the concessionaire agrees to convert the existing bus shelters of International standard where there is no bus shelters. The concessionaire agrees to erect the above bus shelters of International standard at its own cost and in return agrees to pay the royalty amount at the rates hereinafter appearing. xxx The concessionaire agrees to buy royalty amount to MTCL during the period of 12 years. The royalty amount shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 30000/- per year per International Standard Bus Shelter with an escalation of 10% once in every three years over the previous rate. The period of agreements as well as the royalty payment starts from 01.09.2008. xxx This agreement is valid for 12 years from 01.09.2008 with further extension on condition that the entire 500 bus shelters, as per list, would be converted into International Standard Bus Shelters with advertisement space not exceeding 30 sq. mtrs per shelter, within 12 months from 01.09.2008. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... settlement. The disturbing part is that the MTCL has entered into the agreement which has to remain valid for 12 years with the consortium of six firms without calling for tenders. These facts are not only bewildering, but really shocking. 12. In this background, the seminal question that is required to be addressed first is whether under the Act it is the Corporation or the MTCL has the authority to deal with bus shelters for passengers. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. V. Giri and Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, learned senior Counsel appearing for various parties in different appeals would contend that the High Court has fallen into error in its appreciation of the provisions of the Act and has erroneously come to hold that Corporation has the authority to exercise the powers for providing shelters to the passengers and to deal with the shelters for any commercial venture and the said transport undertakings are to be controlled and managed by the Corporation and the MTCL has no authority to grant permission for establishing the bus shelters or to deal with them in any manner. It is further urged by them that the High Court has failed to take note of the fact that at the time the State Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t being private property growing on public streets or by the side thereof, shall vest in the corporation. (2) The State Government may by notification withdraw any such street drain, drainage work, tunnel, culvert, or tree from the control of the corporation. 15. From the aforesaid provisions, it is quite vivid that all public streets and their appurtenances which are not reserved under the control of the Central or State Government shall vest in the Corporation. Thus the reservation as engrafted under the provision is only meant for the Central Government or the State Government. Sub-section 2 of Section 203 enables the State Government to issue a notification withdrawing any street, drain, drainage, tunnel, culvert or tree from the control of the Corporation. It is submitted by Mr. Rohtagi that Section 203(1) of the Act, barring certain streets, vests everything in the Corporation. The State Government has been conferred the power by the legislature to withdraw certain streets and other things from the control of the Corporation, for the legislature in its wisdom has thought it appropriate to carve out an exception from Section 203(1) and enabled the State to deal with it afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral has highlighted the said provision to bolster the proposition that it is the Corporation's authority to deal with bus shelters and the hoardings/advertisements put on those shelters, it is apposite to reproduce the same: 223-A. Power of Council to setup hoardings and levy fees - Subject to the provisions of the Madras Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 (II of 1959) and Section 129-A to 129-F of this Act, the commissioner may, with the sanction of the council, set up, for the exhibition of advertisements, hoardings, erections or other things in suitable place owned by, or vested in the corporation and may permit any person to use any such hoardings, erection or thing on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by Regulations made by the council in this behalf. Explanation I. - For the purpose of Section 129-D and 129-E the person who has been permitted to use any hoarding, erection or thing under this Section shall be in addition to the advertisements Taxes payable by him Under Section 129-A or advertisements exhibited by him on such hoarding, executing or thing. Explanation II. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any fee payable by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or used solely upon the premises of the owner. The aforesaid definition indubitably would include a bus. Keeping the same in view, we are to examine Section 285-A which has been emphasised by the learned Counsel for the parties. The said provision reads as follows: 285-A - Prohibition of use of public place or sides of public street as cart-stand etc. - Where the commissioner has provided a public landing place, halting place, cart-stand, cattle-shed, or cow-house, he may prohibit the use for the same purpose by any person within such distance thereof as may be determined by the standing committee of any public place or the sides of any public street: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to authorise the commissioner to prohibit the use of any place in the city by the State Government as a stand solely for motor vehicles belonging to the Transport Department of the State Government. 23. Section 285-B deals with recovery of cart-stand fees, etc. On a scrutiny of the said pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g contained in Section 285-A shall be deemed to authorise the Commissioner to prohibit the use of any place in the city by the State Government as a stand solely for motor vehicles belonging to the Transport Department of the State Government. 27. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants would contend that MTCL is a State undertaking and comes under the Transport Department. On a reading of the said proviso, it is graphically clear that the Commissioner's power cannot be extended to prohibit the use of any place in the city by the State Government as a stand solely for motor vehicles belonging to the Transport Department. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the vehicles in question belong to the State undertakings and thereby to the Transport Department and, therefore, the Commissioner has no role. On a first blush, the aforesaid submission looks slightly attractive, but on a studied scrutiny it has to pale into insignificance. We are inclined to think so as Section 285 uses the term "cart-stand" and by way of amendment, it has been specified that a cart-stand would be 'stand' for a carriage including motor vehicles within the meani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract or anything else. But it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary; but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. 29. We have referred to the aforesaid authorities only to highlight that the stand for motor vehicles in its grammatical connotation are quite explicit and conveys a definite meaning. It basically means making provisions for stands for motor vehicle. The word used in Section 285 is cart-stand. The explanation clearly states that the cart-stand, for the purposes of this Act, would include motor vehicles. The Corporation has been authorised by the Act to make provisions for cart-stands. When one thinks of stand for motor vehicles, it only means, the parking place. That is the popular meaning of the word. The "stand", if one would like to conceive that it would include shelters for passengers, it will be a grossly unreasonable interpretation. It has to be given the common parlance meaning. While dealing with the concept of popular sense, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the language is clear the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. While doing so, what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said has to be noted. The construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words has to be avoided. As stated by the Privy Council in Crawford v. Spooner (1846) 6 Moore PC 1 "we cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend and, by construction make up deficiencies which are left there". In case of an ordinary word there should be no attempt to substitute or paraphrase of general application. Attention should be confined to what is necessary for deciding the particular case. This principle is too well settled and reference to a few decisions of this Court would suffice. (See: Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested Forests (1990) Supp SCC 785, Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1992) SCC (L and S) 248, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse (1997) 6 SCC 312 and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India (2002) 3 SCC 722.) 31. If the provisions which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less important. 32. Applying the aforesaid principle, when we scan the anatomy of the provisions, we are impelled to arrive at a singular conclusion that the Corporation has the authority to deal with cart-stand which includes the motor vehicles and the 'stand' as used in proviso to Section 285 of the Act only refers to the stand for motor vehicles and cannot include bus shelters. 33. At this juncture, we must take note of the submission, though feebly made, by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the word 'stand' even if construed as a stand equivalent to cart-stand, would mean stand for motor vehicles only and not include bus shelters and, therefore, the Corporation would not have the authority but the State Government will have the power. The said submission has no legs to stand upon and hence, is hereby rejected. It is for the reason that the Corporation has to look after the convenience of the people as enshrined Under Section 204 of the Act. The cumulative reading of the provisions and on proper understanding of the scheme of the Act, there remains no trace of a doubt that the Corporation has the authority to deal with the 'stands' and have t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecides and the same cannot be prohibited by the Commissioner of the Corporation. The "stand" as has been discussed hereinbefore would only include "stand for motor vehicles". The "stand" would not include shelters for passengers. The "stand" as has been stated earlier conveys the meaning of either a "parking place" or a "halting place" for the motor vehicle. In common parlance, the "stand" and "shelter for passengers" are quite different. They cannot be attributed the same meaning. The State Government could have issued a notification specifying certain places as stands for motor vehicles of the Transport Department which may include State transport undertakings i.e. MTCL, but the State Government, as we understand the scheme of the Act, has no statutory authority to issue a notification allowing the State transport undertakings to provide shelters for passengers. It is well settled in law that neither the Rule nor a Regulation nor a Notification can transgress the postulates engrafted under the Act. In General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav (1988) 2 SCC 351, it has been held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have recourse to equitable principles however fair they may appear to be at first sight. 42. In Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype and Ors. v. Aba Maruti Mali and Ors. AIR 1962 SC 753, a three-Judge Bench has opined that equity does not operate to annul a statute. This appears to us to be well established but we may refer to While and Tudor's Leading cases in Equity (9th ed. P. 238), where it is stated: Although, in cases of contract between parties, equity will often relieve against penalties and forfeitures, where compensation can be granted, relief can never be given against the provisions of a statute. 43. In P.M. Latha and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 541, it has been opined: Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or settled law.... 44. In Raghunath Raj Bareja and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 230, the Court observed that it is well settled that when there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which has to prevail. The Court further ruled that equity can supplement the law, but it cannot supplant or override it. In this context, reliance was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the agreement was entered into. This Court had never passed any order/direction in that regard. The Court had disposed of the matter on the basis of the compromise. There was no decision by this Court. In such a situation, when the parties entered into an agreement and knowing fully well that the decision of the High Court was still staring at them, which cannot be countenanced. 47. The claim of equity has also to be adjudged on the bedrock of truth. In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Court has observed thus: ...Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a settlement, has entered into an agreement in respect of bus shelters after the judgment of the High Court of Madras, consciously it proceeded to do so and, in fact, did enter into an agreement. It would have been appropriate on its part from all spectrums to remain within its bounds. It failed to do so. When a power had not been conferred on MTCL to do so and it exercises that power under the cloak of a power conferred, it really paved the path of deviance. The Appellants could not have legitimately entered into a settlement with the MTCL. It could not have entered into an agreement with the State undertaking. This was a clear deceit on the part of the Appellants in collusion with the MTCL to frustrate the legal rights of the Corporation. It is a deception intended to get an advantage. It is another matter that the Corporation did not wake up to save its own interest. The writ Petitioner, for his own individual interest, made a prayer to recall of the order and thereafter, as we find, the Corporation has woken from slumber. Be that as it may, it was a loss to the Corporation and the Corporation is a public body and it is expected to protect and handle its finances for the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be in a very exceptional circumstance, for in the absence of transparency the public confidence is not only shaken but shattered. In the case at hand, as the contract has been entered by way of some kind of understanding reason of which is quite unfathomable, such a contract has to be treated as vitiated, applying this principle also. 54. From the aforesaid analysis, it is luculent that there was a deceit practiced by the Appellants in collusion with MTCL and the authorities of the MTCL had acted with full knowledge against the statute and against the interest of the Corporation. The beneficiaries are the Appellants. As far as the MTCL functionaries are concerned, we do not intend to say anything as we have been apprised by Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned AAG for the State of Tamil Nadu that certain proceedings are pending against the functionaries of the MTCL. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the fact that the Corporation should have been vigilant to protect its own interests. However, as is perceived, it did not wake up for long. The State remained a silent spectator to all that was going on. Under these circumstances, prayer has been made on beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
