PETITIONER:
CHERAN TRANSPORT CO. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KANAN LORRY SERVICE AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/12/1976
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1564 1977 SCR (2) 389
1977 SCC (1) 604
ACT
Motor Vehicle Act -- Secs. 58,68--C 68D(3), 68F(1D)--Stage
carriage operator--Permit--Renewal--Renewal application made
within time-- Whether can be defeated by Publication Scheme.
HEADNOTE
The respondent was Stage Carriage Operator whose two permits
were to expire in January and March 1976. In the usual
course and in compliance with section 58 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939, he applied for renewal more than 120
days ahead but at the time of the actual date of expiry of
the permits a draft scheme under part IV-A had been pub-
lished. The State withdrew the draft scheme under part IV-A
for some technical reasons and republished in July 1975,
after the appellants’ permits had expired. Section 68F(1D)
provides that no permit shall be granted or renewal during
the period intervening between the date of publication under
s. 68C of any scheme and the date of publication of the
approved or modified scheme. The proviso to the said sec-
tion provides that if a permit expires after the publication
of the scheme such permit may be renewed for a limited
period but the renewed permit shall cease to be effective
on the publication of the scheme under s. 68D(3). Applying
the prohibition contained in s. 68F(1D) the Regional
Transport Authority rejected the prayer for renewal. The
High Court set aside that order directed the grant of the
renewal.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD: 1. At the time the respondents’ permit expired a
draft scheme had already been published but the approved
scheme had not been, published. Any permit holder whose
permit expires during this spell is eligible for a renewal
as specified in the proviso. The fact that the draft scheme
was later withdrawn ca.not affect the rights to a renewal.
Renewal of the permit however would be to the extent contem-
plated by section 68F(1D). [390G-H]
2. (a) No permit or renewal except to the extent ex-
pressly saved by section 68F(1D) can be granted by the
Regional Transport Authority during the period between the
date of publication of any scheme and the date of publi-
cation of the approved scheme. [391C]
(b) If a permit expires after the publication of any
draft scheme such permit is eligible for renewal for a
limited period as set out in the proviso. The special provi-
sion contained in that proviso cannot be stretched on the
ground of possible anomalies or unjust consequences to cover
permits expiring even before the publication of the draft
scheme. Where language is plain the interpretation cannot
take the shape of addition or interstitial legislation.
[391C-D]
3. If a permit holder whose permit is about to expire
diligently does in the normal course, all that he needs and
all that he can, that is to say, if he sets in motion the
legal machinery for the grant of renewal as laid down in
section 58, the fact that a scheme is published before the
actual grant of renewal will not intercept or extinguish
the process of law set in motion by the application for
renewal. If for reasons beyond the control of the applicant
the renewal process gets delayed or prolonged he. cannot be
penalised. Renewal is a legal process and not the final
act. Save in this category of cases all other permits which
have expired before the draft scheme is published, suffer
the ban of s. 68F(1D). However, no permit can ensure beyond
the time of the publication of the approved scheme. [391D-
F]
390
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1349-
1350/76.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree
dated the 12th October 1976 of the Madras High Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 5881 and 5884 of 1975.
V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol, General of lndia, (Mrs.) N. G,
Krishna Iyengar, Shri Narain, K.J.’ John, D.N. Mishra for
the Appellant.
F.S. Nariman, M. N. Rangachari, A.R. Ramanathan,
Jayaraman,M.M.L. Srivastava and A.T.M. Sarapath for Respond-
ent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by--
KRISHNA IYER, J. The short ,question, involving a point
of construction of s. 68-F(1D), has been raised by the
Additional Solicitor General in these appeals by Special
Leave.
The respondent was a stage carriage operator whose two
permits ,were to expire in January and. March 1976. In the
usual course and in compliance with s. 58. of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, ’The Act’) he applied for
renewal more than 120 days ahead but at the time of the
actual date of expiry of the permits a-draft scheme under
part IV-A had been published. This fulfilled the require-
ments of the proviso to s. 68-F(1D) and entitled the appel-
lant to renewal for the limited period stated in the said
proviso. But the State withdrew the draft scheme for some
technical reasons and republished it in July 1975, after the
appellant’s permit had expired. Applying the prohibition
contained in s. 68-F(1D) the Regional Transport Authority
(for short the ’R.T.A.’) rejected the prayer for renewal.
However, the High Court set aside that order and directed
the grant of renewal, on a certain view of the section which
the Additional Solicitor General contends goes beyond the
limits of the plain words used. The aggrieved State ap-
peals.
While we are satisfied that on the peculiar facts. of
this case the respondent can sustain the permits the legal
position canvassed by the appellant appears to be correct.
At the time the respondent’s permit expired a draft
scheme had already been published but the approved scheme
had not been published. Any permit holder whose permit
expires during this spell is eligible for a renewal as
specified in the proviso. The fact that the draft scheme
was later withdrawn cannot affect the right to a renewal.
We, therefore, hold that the renewal of permit shall remain
to the extent contemplated in the proviso to s. 68-F(1D).
Before we consider the legal question we may read s. 68-
F(1D).
"(1D) Save as otherwise provided in sub-
sectiOn (1A) or sub-section (1G), no permit
shall be granted or renewed during the period
intervening between the date of publication,
under Section 68-(2 of any scheme and the date
of publication of the approved or modified
scheme, in favour of
391
any person for any class or road transport
service in relation to an area or route or
portion thereof covered by such scheme.
Provided that where the period of opera-
tion of a permit in relation to any area,
route, or portion thereof specified in a
scheme published under Section 68-C expires
after such publication, such permit may be
renewed for a limited period, but the permit
so renewed shall cease to be effective on the
publication of the scheme under sub-section
(3) of Seetion 68-D."
Three propositions plainly emerge.
No permit or renewal, except to the extent expressly
saved by s. 68-F(ID), can be granted by the R.T.A. during
the period between the date of publication of any scheme and
the date of publication of the approved scheme. (2) If a
permit expires after the publication of any draft scheme
such permit is eligible for renewal for a limited period as
set out in the proviso. This special provision cannot be
stretched, on the ground of possible anomalies or unjust
consequences, to cover permits expiring even before the
publication of the draft scheme. Where the language is
plain, interpretation cannot take the shape of addition or
interstitial legislation. (3) A rider to proposition No. 2
has to be added. If a permit holder whose permit is about
to expire, diligently does, in the normal course, all that
he need and all that he can, that is to say, apply for
renewal before 120 days, in the manner laid down in s. 58 of
the Act, he sets in motion the legal machinery for the grant
of renewal which must ordinarily culminate. in renewal
within 120 days. The fact that a scheme is published
before the actual grant of renewal will not intercept or
extinguish the process of law set in motion by the applica-
tion for renewal. In such cases the R.T.A. has to act
promptly and if the application for renewal is in conformity
with the law it has to consider it and grant or reject
according to merit. If, for reasons beyond the control of
the applicant, the renewal process gets delayed or pro-
longed he cannot be penalised. Renewal is a legal process,
not the final act. Save in this category of cases, all
other permits which have expired before the draft scheme is
published, suffer the ban of s. 68-F(1D). However, no
permit can ensure beyond the time of the publication of the
approved scheme. This saves cases of bona-fide applications
for renewal of permits, not calculated to thwart a scheme,
and helps the travelling public during the interregnum when
the scheme is under scrutiny. The wider proposition accept-
ed by the High Court that all permits which have expired
before the draft scheme is published can be renewal does not
appear to be correct and does not have our approval.
With this declaration of the law we dismiss the appeals.
No order as to costs.
P.H.P. Appeals dismissed.
9--1546SCI/76
392