Skip to content


The District Transport Officer, Alleppey Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberO.P. Nos. 885 and 886 of 1960
Judge
Reported inAIR1962Ker335
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 68C and 68D
AppellantThe District Transport Officer, Alleppey
RespondentState Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam and ors.
Appellant AdvocateGovernment Pleader
Respondent Advocate Govt. Pleader, for Respondents 1 and 2,; P. Govindan Nair,;
Excerpt:
motor vehicles - interpretation - section 68c and 68d - writ petitions raising question pertaining to exact scope of expression 'route' - statute provides that 'notified route' need not be co-extensive with route in respect of which party holds stage carriage permit - provision made giving particulars about persons actually holding stage carriage permits and also certain other details regarding those permits - third respondent in these applications operating over part of 'notified route' also hit by that provision and as such not entitled to ask for renewal of that permit - petition allowed. - - 28. the learned government pleader appearing for the petitioner in these matters as well as mr. this clearly envisage that even a part of a route covered by ,a permit in favour of a.....order1. common questions arise for decision in both these original petitions and they relate to the proper interpretation to be placed upon the expression 'route' referred to in the provisions relating to state transport undertaking contained in chapter tv-a of the motor vehicles act -- act iv of 1939.2. as facts are slightly different, i may mention the circumstances under which the two writ petitions have come to be filed.3. in o. p. 885/60, the third respondent was the holder of a stage carriage permit in respect of motor vehicle k. l. q. 1642 plying between alleppey and kalavoor. in the usual course, the third respondent applied to the regional transport authority, alleppey, the second respondent herein for renewal of the permit. the rule t. a. by its order dated 20-11-59 ext. pi.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Common questions arise for decision in both these Original petitions and they relate to the proper interpretation to be placed upon the expression 'route' referred to in the provisions relating to State Transport undertaking contained in Chapter TV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act -- Act IV of 1939.

2. As facts are slightly different, I may mention the circumstances under which the two writ petitions have come to be filed.

3. In O. P. 885/60, the third respondent was the holder of a Stage Carriage permit in respect of Motor Vehicle K. L. Q. 1642 plying between Alleppey and Kalavoor. In the usual course, the third respondent applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Alleppey, the second respondent herein for renewal of the permit. The Rule T. A. by its order dated 20-11-59 Ext. PI rejected that application of the third respondent for renewal on the main ground that the route has been taken up for notification under section 68-D of the Act, and especially because the District Transport Officer, who is the writ petitioner before me, has objected to a grant of the renewal.

4. This order of the Rule T. A. was challenged by the third respondent by way of an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Kerala State, Ernakulam, namely, the first respondent herein.

5. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by its judgment evidenced by Ext. P2, has reversed the order of the Rule T. A. Ext. PI. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal in the end, has directed the Rule T. A. to consider the application for renewal of the third respondent on its merits, in view of the conclusions arrived at by it that the Nationalisation proposals do not in any way, affect the right of the third respondent.

6. The actual reasons given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which are under attack by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, and no doubt sought to be supported by Mr. P. Govindan Nair, learned counsel for the contesting respondent in both these applications, will be referred to a littlt later.

7. At this stage, I can mention that it is ihe view of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the route which has been notified under section 68-D of the Act, is something different from the route over which the petitioner is holding a Stage Carriage permit.

8. In consequence of this order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Rule T. A. is sued a fresh order on 18-5-60 under Ext. P3 holding that the third respondent is eligible for renewal of the permit and acordingly, he also passed an order renewing the permit in favour of the third respondent. The main order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Ext. P2 and the consequential order Ext. P3 passed by the Rule T. A., are both attacked by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the District Transport Officer, Alleppey.

9. The facts in the other connected application namely, O. P. 886/60 are almost identical excepting that the holder of the State Carriage permit in that case and the vehicle in respect of which the permit had been granted, are different. Here again, the third respondent, who was holding a Stage Carriage permit in respect of Motor Vehicle K. L. Q. 1635 plying between Alleppey and Kalavoor, applied to the Rule T. A. for renewal of the permit. The Rule T. A. again, as in the connected case, was of the opinion that in view of the fact that the route in question has been notified for purpose of Nationalisation under Section 68-D,the application for renewal cannot be granted and therefore, rejected the same.

10. There was an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by the third respondent and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, in an almost identical judgment as that of Ext. P2 in the connected writ petition, has again disagreed with the conclusions arrived at by the R. T. A. and ultimately sent back the matter to the Rule T. A. for consideration of the application for renewal on its merits. In consequence of this order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Rule T. A. in turn, has is sued the order Ext. P3 granting a renewal of the permit in favour of the third respondent. Therefore, as in the connected writ petition, the District Transport Officer, Alleppey, through the learned Government Pleader, attacks the main order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal' 'Ext. P2 and the consequential order Ext. P3 passed by the Rule T. A.

11. The main question, as I mentioned earlier, that arises for decision in both these writ petitions, is regarding the exact scope of the 'expression 'route' occurring in Chapter 1V-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

12. Before I deal with the contentions of the learned counsel and also the reasons given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the renewal of the permit asked for by the respective parties should be granted. 1 think it is desirable that I advert to the salient provisions of the Act under Chapter IV-A dealing with the publication of the scheme and also the final notification that is to be is sued in such cir'cumstances.

13. Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act enacts certain provisions relating to State Transport undertakings.

Section 68-A contains the definitions of certain expressions mentioned therein.

Section 68-B is to tile effect that the provisions of Chapter IV-A and the rules and orders made thereunder are to have the effect notwithstanding any inconsistency that may be contained in Chapter IV of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.

Under Section 68-C power is given to the State Transport Undertaking to publish a scheme of road transport service of the said undertaking. Section 68-C provides:

'Where any State Transport undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service, it is necessary iff the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated b'y the State transport undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Transport undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered the area or route proposed to b' covered and such other particulars respectingthereto as may be prescribed, and shalll cause every such scheme to be puoplished in we Offcial Gazette and also in such other manner as in State Government may direct'.

Section 63-D provides for objections being filed regarding the approved scheme published under Section 68-C.

Sub-section (1) of section 68-D provides that any person attected by the scheme puplished under Section 68-C, can file, within thirty days from thedate of publication of the scheme, objections thereto before the State Government.

Under Sub-section (2) the State Government is given the power 10 approve or modify the scheme after considering the objections, if any, that have been fied and also alter giving an opportunity for his representations as also to the representations of the State Transport Undertaking to be heard in such matters.

Under Sub-section (3) of section 68-D again, provision is made for the publication of the scheme as approved or modified under Sub-section (2) in the official Gazette by the State Government and it also provides1 that such a scheme, when published, shall become final and it is to be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which is relates shall be called the notified area or notified route.

There is a proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D which is not necessary to be considered and it relates to inter-State route.

Under Section 68-E power again is given for effecting suitable modifications or cancellation of any scheme that may have been published under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D and the procedure to be followed for such purposes is also indicated therein.

Under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-F a right is given to the State transport undertaking to apply for the stage carriage permit in pursuance of an approved scheme in respect of a notified area or the notified route and it also provfdes for the Rule T. A. is suing such permit to the State transport undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV.

Sub-section (2) of Section 68-F provides that for the purpose of giving effect to the approvedscheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the Rule T. A. is given certain powers in themanner mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c). So far as Clause (c) is concerned, which relates to the modification of the terms of the existing permit, there are three other Sub-clauses regarding the manner in which a permit already granted, can be reduced or curtailed in the light of those provisions.

Sub-section (3) of section 68-F is to the effect that no appeal shall lie against any action taken, or order passed by the Rule T. A. under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2).

It is not necessary for me to consider the provisions of Sections 68-G and 68-H, as they relate lo the principles and method of determining com-pensation.

Section 68-1(1) gives power to the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter and Subsection (2) provides 'also for the purposes for which rules may be framed without prejudice tothe generality of the other power already contained under section 68-1 .(1) of the Act

14. it may be mentioned at this stage that by virtue of the powers conterred under Section 68-1 of the Act reterred to earlier, the State Government framed rules called: 'The Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertakings) Rules, 1957.' They were actually published in the Gazette on 2nd July 1957.

15. Under Rule (4) it is provided that whenever the Director of State Transport, Kerala is convinced that the Road Passenger Service in any area or route should be wholly or partially operated by his department in the interest of efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated services, he may prepare and publish, with the prior approval of Government, a scheme for the purpose, in the Government Gazette, under Section 68-C of the Act Rule (5) provides that when_the proposal is to operate the service in simultaneous replacement of all the permits in force at the tune, the scheme shall be prepared and published in the form shown in Appendix AA; and when the proposal is for partial replacement only of the permits in force, the scheme shall be prepared and published in the form shown in Appendix AB,

Rule (6) states that the scheme proposed is to contain the particulars mentioned therein.

I will leave off Rules (7) and (8) which are not very material for the present purpose.

Rule (9) provides that the approved scheme shall be published in the Government Gazette in the form shown in Appendix AC.

Then there are the Appendix AA, AB, and AC which are extracted below:

Appendix AA.

Whereas the Kerala State Transport Department proposes to operate as early as may be the stage carriage service in complete exclusion of other persons in the route/area noted below with a view to affording efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport passenger service and whereas the stage carriage permit in force in or touching the said area/route have therefore to be replaced, cancelled or modified as the case may be, the undersigned is hereby publishing this scheme under Section 68-C of the M. V. Act 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939), for general information.

Any person affected by the scheme may file his objections before Secretary to Government, P W. D. within thirty days of the publication of the scheme in the official Gazette in the prescribed manner under Section 68-D of the Act(Here enter a detailed description of the route or area. In the case of routes the starting point, important intermediate Stations and destination and the length of route should be mentioned).

Sd/-

xx

Director of State Transport. Appendix AB.

Whereas the Kerala State Transport Department proposes to introduce as soon as may be Tegular stage carriage services in partial exclusion of the persons in the area/route noted below with a view to affording efficient, adequate, economicaland properly co-ordinated road transport passenger service by replacement or cancellation or modification as the case may be of the stage carriage permits in force in the said area/route whenever found necessary, the undersigned is hereby publishing this scheme under section 68-C of the M. V. Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) for general information.

Any person affected by the scheme may file his objections before Secretary to Government, P. W. D. within thirty days from the date of publication of the scheme in the official Gazette in the prescribed manner under Section 68-D of the Act.

(Here enter a detailed description of the routeor area. In the case of routes the starting point,important intermediate Stations and destinationand the length of the route should be mentioned).

(Sd) Director of State Transport.

APPENDIX AC.

Whereas the Kerala State Transport Department has prepared and published in the Government Gazette dated ............ a scheme underSection 68-C of the M. V. Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) as amended by Act 100 of 1956 for the operation of stage carriage services by the Department in the area ........./route and whereas theGovernment have considered as required by the Act the objection filed to the said scheme, it is hereby. notified under Section 68-D of the Act that with a view to providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport passenger service, the Government approve the scheme as noted below and declare the area/route to be a notified area/notified route with effect from ..............................

(here enter the area or route. In the case of routes, the starting point, important intermediate points and destination and the length of the route should be given).

Sd/- Secretary to Government, P. W. Dept

16. It is common ground that the relevant rules that were in force at the material time when the Notification under Section 68-C and Section 68-D of the Act were published are the rules referred to earlier namely, the rules published on 2nd July 1957.

17. No doubt, it is seen that a new set of rules have been framed on 8th March 1960 and published on 15th March 1960 in which Acre is some slight difference. I will advert to it a little later.

18. In these two writ petitions, the relevant notification under Section 68-C namely, the preliminary Notification or draft scheme if I may call it, was made on 24th February 1958 and published in the State Gazette on 4th March 1958. As I will show presently, that it is exactly in terms of the form prescribed under Rule (5) namely, in Appendix AA of the rules of 1957. It runs as follows:

NOTIFICATION.

24th February, 1958.

Whereas the Kerala State Transport Department proposes to operate, as early as may be the Stage Carriage Services in complete exclusion of the other persons in the routes noted below, with a view to affording efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport passenger service and whereas the Stage Carriage Permits in force in or touching the said routes have therefore to be replaced, cancelled or modified as the case may be, the undersigned is hereby publishing the scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) for general Information.

Any person affected by the scheme may file his objections before Secretary to Government. Public Works -Department within thirty days of the publication of the scheme in the official Gazette in the prescribed manner under Section 6S-D of the Act, together with court fee stamps to the value of Rs. 2/-.

Name of routes.

Starting Place.

Destination,

Important

Places served

Route mileage.

Date from which the scheme is proposed to he implemented.

The class of service proposed to he operated

(Passenger and for Goods service.)

Alleppey-Kani-chamkul-angara.

Alleppey.

Kani-

chamkul-angaia.

Pathira-pally. Kalavoor-Kanji-kuzhi.

11

1-4-1958.

Passsenger service.

T.C. S. Pillai, Director of Transport.

Trivandrum.

19. It will be seen from the notification referred to earlier that the proposal is to nationalise the route Alleppey-Kanichamkulangara in complete exclusion of other persons and it is also mentioned in column (2) that the starting place is Al-leppey and in column (3) the destination is stated to be Kanichakulangara. Column (4) gives the important places served namely, Pathirappally,' Kala-voor, and Kanjikuzhi. The route mileage in column (5) is 11 and the date from which the scheme is proposed to be Implemented is given in column (6) as 1-4-1958 and in column (7) the class of service proposed to be operalefl is given as passenger service.

20. The final notification is sued by the Government under Section 68-D which has been extracted more or less in full in the order of the State Trans-port Appellate Tribunal Ex. P2, runs as follows; No. TB-2-2590/58/PW.

NOTIFICATION.

Whereas the Kerala State Transport Department has prepared and published in the Government Gazette dated 4-3-1958 a scheme under Section 6$ (C) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) as amended by Act 100/56 for the operation of Stage Carriage services by the Department in the routes specified below and whereas the Government have not received any objection to the said scheme, so far, it is hereby notifiedy under Section 68(D) of the Act that with a view to providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport passenger service, the Government approve the scheme as-noted below and declare the route to be a notified-route in complete exclusion of private operators with effect from 1-7-1958.

Sl. No.

Name of route.

Starting place.

Destination.

Important places.

Route

mileage.

Date.

Class of services.

i.

Alleppey Kanichakul-angara.

Alleppey.

Kanichakul-angara.

Pathirapally, Kalavoor, Kanji-kuzhy.

11

1-7-58

Passenger.

That notification was published in the State Gazette under Section 68-D of the Act on 18th June, 1958. Here again, it will be seen that there were no objections received to the draft scheme published under 3. 68-C on 4-3-58 and therefore, the Government notified under Section 63-D of the Act that with a view to providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport passenger service, the Government approved the scheme as stated therein and declared the route to be a notified route in complete exclusion of private operators with effect from 1-7-1958. Here again the name of the route is given as Alleppey-Kanichakulangara and the starting point is Alleppey and destination is Kamchakulangara. The important places run > are given as Pathirappally, Kala-voor, and Kanjikuzhy, Route mileage is 11 and the class of service is passenger service.

21. The grounds on which fhe State Transport Appellate Tribunal has directed the Rule T. A. to grant renewal of permits in favour' of the third respondent in these two applications are mainly two. The first ground on the basis of which the Appellate Tribunal has directed the grant of renewal is that these applicants are holders of Stage Carriage permits for the route Alleppey-Kalavoor whereas the notified route under Section 68-D relates to a totally different route namely, Alleppey-Kanichakulangara. The second ground that operated in the mind of the Appellate Tribunal appears to be that a draft notification more or less identical to the notification is sued under Section 68-C has been interfered with by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground that it does not comply with the terms of Section 68-C. Therefore, the present notification is sued under Section 68-C which covers both those applications, also suffers from that infirmity and therefore the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is of the view that the notification should not be acted upon.

22. So far as the Second ground that has operated in the mind of the Appellate Tribunal is concerned, I may straightaway say that even Mr. P. Govindan Nair, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has not made any serious effect (effort?) to support that line of reasoning. It may be that if I am considering for the first time the correctness of otherwise of the notificaton is sued under Section 68-C, I will have to test the notification in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in other connected matters. But the point is when no objections have been filed by the third respondents in these two writ applications as required by the notification is sued under Section 68-C, whether it is open to them to rely on that ground ot attack before the Appellate Tribunal and Whether the Appellate Tribunal has acted properly in entertaining that ground of attack before it.

23. In my opinion, the Appellate Tribunalwas not justified in considering that aspect at all because admittedly the third respondents in these applications have not chosen to file any representation or objections as called for when the scheme was published under Section 68-C of the Act

24. On the other hand, they were prepared to take their chance by filing application for renewal and that application has been rejected by the Rule T. A.

25. Therefore, the ground of attack made before the Appellate Tribunal, which has found favour with the Appellate Tribunal that the notification suffers from lack of certain points referred to in in Section 68-C of the Act, should not have been entertained by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, that ground of attack and the reasons given by the Appellate Tribunal for accepting that ground of attack, will have to be set aside.

26. The Appellate Tribunal has, no doubt, referred in some great detail to the Kerala Road Transport Servides (Validation) Act, 1957. Evidently, the Government Pleader appearing before him seems to have raised some contentions based upon that enactment. I do not think that a consideration of that enactment is at all necessary for disposing of the controversy that now exists between the parties before me.

27. Therefore, almost the only ground that exists on the basis of which the Appellate Tribunal has chosen to direct the grant of a renewal of permit, is that the third respondent in each of these applications, is the holder of a permit of a 'route', which has not been notified under Section 68-D of the Act, The question is whether flits reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal is correct or not.

28. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner in these matters as well as Mr. P. Govindan Nair, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, have both of them taken me through the various provisions in Chapter IV-A of the Act in support of their respective contentions. Mr. Govindan Nair was prepared to take his stand that the route mentioned in Chapter IV-A and notified under Section 68-D for purposes of Nationalisation must be almost or more or less identical with the route over which the particular operators have got stage carriage permits. That is the line of reasoning which has also, I find, appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. I am not able to accept this contention of the learned counsel.

29. On the other Hand, I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the learned Government Pleader that the route referred to in Chapter IV-A and notified for purposes of Nationalisation, is the; route as mentioned in the particular notification in question. I have already mentioned that in the notification is sued under Section 68-C, the route that is mentioned is Alleppey-Kanichakulangaraand that again is repeated in the final notification is sued by the Goverument under Section 68-D- Whatever may be the route or rouies for which permits may have been granted to individual operators by the third respondent in these applications, that has, in my view, no bearing or no relevancy in considering the notified route under the provisions of Chapter 1V-A of the Act. in particular, it will be seen that Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act states that when the scheme as approved or modified under Sub-section (2) is published in the official Gazette by the State Government, it becomes final and it also provides that that scheme will be called 'the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates is called the notified area or notified route'. Therefore, emphasis is laid, in my opinion, that the area or the route referred to therein, is the notified area or the notified route in the scheme as originally published and also in the scheme as finally published under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act

30. Reference may also be made to the provisions of Section 68-C itself. Under that section when the State transport undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State transport undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Transport undertaking may prepare a scheme.

No doubt, the particulars that are given under the scheme, are also mentioned therein namely, the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto. The point to be noted is that here again, it is an area or the route that is proposed to be covered by a notification under Section 68-C an3 that becomes ultimately the notified area or the Trotified route in the final scheme which is published under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D. No doubt, it may be open to the State transport undertaking to have full operation under Section 68-C over an entire area that may be specified therein or over an entire route that may be specified therein or it may even be open to restrict its operation over a portion of the area or 'over a portion of the route that may be specified therein. I am only emphasising these aspects to show that the route or portion of a route that may be mentioned in the Notification under Section 68-C or the final notification under Section 68-D has no bearing or no relevancy at all to the route over which a person or operator may be holding stage carriage permit

31. Again, when reference Is made to certain provisions in Section 68-F, the position becomes clear that the notified route under Section 68-D need not be necessarily and always identical with the route over which a person may be holding a stage carriage perrmit. In particular. I may refer to the provisions in Section 68-F(2)(c)(iii) where it is stated that the Rule T. A. can curtail the area or route covered bv the permit in so far. as such permit relates to thenotified area or notified route. This provision gives a clear indication that the legislature contemplated that the notified route covered by the notification under Section 68-D need not be necessarily identical with the route covered by a permit. If the notified route and the route covered by a permit should be almost identical, it is rather idle that the Legislature would have made this provision enabling the Rule T. A. to curtail the area or route covered by the permit. This clearly envisage that even a part of a route covered by ,a permit in favour of a permit-holder, may be taken by the notified route under Section 68-D of the Act

32. If the notified route and the route as mentioned in the permit in favour of a permit holder are also identical, there are other clauses which come into operation namely, of cancellation of the existing permit itself if it is a service to be run to the exclusion of all persons completely. Then there are provisions for reducing the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit.

33. The reasoning of the Stale Transport Tribunal that because the route over which the third respondent in each of these cases has got a permit namely, Alleppey to Kalavoor is not identical with the route notified under Section 68-D namely, Alleppey-Kanichakulangara and therefore, the two routes are identical, does not appeal to me.

34. On the other hand, the notification under Section 68-D also makes it clear that it is intended to operate nationalised stage carriage services in complete exclusion to other persons in the routes noted therein and the route given therein is Alleppey-Kanichakulangara.

The learned Government Pleader has also drawn my attention to the latter part of that notification dated 24th February 1958 under Section 68-C to the effect that the stage carriage permits in force in or touching the said routes, have therefore to be replaced, cancelled, or modified as the case may be. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the expression 'stage carriage permits in force in the said routes' will have clear reference to the operators like the third respondent in these applications though they may be operated only in a part of the 'notified route'. No doubt, Mr. P. Govindan Nair pointed out that the interpretation sought to be placed by the learned Government Pleader really depends upon the acceptance or otherwise of Mr. Govindan Nair's contention that the 'notified route' mentioned in Section 68-D should really be identical and co-extensive with the route in respect of which his clients have got a right to run the bus service.

35. As I have indicated earlier, I am not able to accept this contention of Mr. P. Govindan Nair that the 'notified route' should always be and must necessarily be co-extensive and identical with the route covered by a permit in favour of a particular party. The notification is sued under Section 68-C and extracted earlier, will clearly show that the intention was to completely exclude other persons operating in the 'notified route'. It may be that the third resoondents in each of these applications may not be operating over the entire distance of the route notified namely. Alleppey-Kanichakiil-angara. But it is clear that they are certainlyoperating over Alleppey-Kalavoor which is the route tor which they nave been granted a stage carriage permit That route for which they hold the said permit, is really situated within the route mentioned as the 'notified route' in the notification is sued under Section 68-C of the Act and the final notification is sued under Section 68-D of the Act. Toe contention of Mr. P. Govindan Nair appears to be that it is only those operators, who hold stage carriage permits for a similar route namely, Allep-pey-Kanichakulangara that are sought to be excluded by the notifications is sued under Section 668-C and 68-D of the Act. This contention cannot certainly be accepted for the reasons mentioned earlier that the 'notified route' need not be co-extensive with a route in respect of which a party holds a stage carriage permit.

36. Mr. P. Govindan Nair referred me to the later rules framed in 1960 and published in the State Gazette on 15th March 1960. In my opinion, there is not much of a substantial difference between the 2 sets of rules, but there is some insistence upon the later rules of giving some more particulars. But even then, I do not think that either the scheme of the Act or the scheme of the original rules has been in any way, altered so as to justify the acceptance of Mr. Govindan Nair's contention. Here again, it will be seen that under Rule 3 there is a provision to the effect that when the State Transport undertaking proposes a scheme for road transport service, it should be in form No. I, when it is sought to completely exclude existing road transport services; such a scheme is to be in form No. II when me scheme is in partial exclusion of existing road transport service; and in form III when the scheme is in supplementation of existing road transport service.

37. It is also worthy of note that even under the new rules in form No. I when it is to be in 'complete exclusion of existing road transport service, no provision at all is made for any particulars being given of the persons who may be operating either on the whole of the route or part of the route. But when we come to the other schemes where partial exclusion on existing road transport service is contemplated or the scheme is for supplementation of existing road transport service as in forms Nos. II and III respectively, provision is made for giving particulars about the persons actually holding stage carriage permits and also certain other details regarding those permits.

38. Therefore, when the intention of the State transport undertaking is to run the State Transport service from Alleppey to Kanichakul-angara as in this case in complete exclusion of other persons, in my opinion, it follows that the third respondents in these applications, who may be operating over part of that 'notified route', are also hit by that provision and as such, they are not entitled to ask for renewal of that permit.

39. So far as the power to refuse the renewal of the permit in such circumstances is concerned, that is contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 68-F. That enables the Rule T. A. for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, to refuse to entertainany application for the renewal of any other permit ana also to do certain otner matters mentioned in the other sub-clauses of the Sub-section, inerel'ore, it will be seen that the action of the Rule T. A. in these cases, refusing the application of the third respondent for renewal of their permits, no doubt for the route Alleppey-Kalavoor, was perfectly justified and authorised by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 68-F of the Act.

40. Therefore, it follows that the other reason given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to the effect that the 'notified route' in the scheme and published under Section 68-D is not identical with the route over which the third respondents are holding permits, does not appeal to me and that line of reasoning also has to be negatived.

41. Therefore, it follows that the two grounds given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for reversing the order of the Rule T. A. fail, and these two writ petitions will have to be allowed. The orders under attack namely, Exts. P2 and P3, in each of these writ petitions have in consequenece, to be set aside and quashed.

42. Parties will bear their own costs in boththese proceedings.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //