1960 (9) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... August 24, 1959, for the renewal of the permits under s. 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), (hereinafter called the Act). On October 29, 1959, the State Transport Department published its proposed scheme for the nationalization of the road transport services in respect of an are which included the routes of the petitioner. On November 29, 1959, the petitioner wrote a letter to there Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, asking him why its application for renewal of the stage carriage permits had not been published as required by s. 57 of the Act. It also expressed its apprehension that the application was not published by the Regional Transport Authority with a view to assist the State Transport Department in ousting it from the said routes and that the Authority was creating a situation in order to force the petitioner to accept temporary permits under s. 62(d) of the Act. The Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority, by his letter dated November 11, 1959, replied to the effect that the application for renewal had been published on November 8, 1959, and that the said application would be consider before the expiry date and that no question o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of on the ground that the matter was sub judice in the High Court of Bombay. On March 17, 1960, the Provincial Transport Services filed a fresh application before the Regional Transport Authority under Ch. IV A of the Act for the grant of permits for Plying buses on the routes mentioned therein. It was also brought to the notice of the Regional Transport Authority that the Provincial Transport Services desired to operate the routes in question from May 1, 1960, or any other date as may be fixed by the Regional Transport Authority. Presumably, the second application was filed as the earlier application was filed not under Ch. IV but under Ch. IV A of the Act on the basis of the proposed scheme. On March 31, 1960, the Regional Transport Authority met again, but the application for renewal of permits filed by the petitioner were not taken up for consideration. It is suggested that as 30 day had not expired from the date of the filing of the applications by the Provincial Transport Services the petitioner's applications could not be taken up for consideration. On April 14, 1960, the Chief Minister of Bombay heard the objections and on April 19, 1960, the scheme with modifications....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plication for permit the Regional Transport Authority shall publish the application in the prescribed manner calling for representations to be made on a date not being less than 30 days from the date of publication. After hearing the said objections and representations, the applications will be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 62 enables the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits without following the procedure prescribed under s. 57 to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorize the use of a transport vehicle temporarily pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. The second proviso to that section states that a temporary permit under the said section shall, in no case, be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such application for renewal. Section 68F enables the State Transport Undertaking, in pursuance of an approved scheme, to apply in the manner specified in Ch. IV for a stage carriage permit in respect of a notified route and on such an application the Regional Transport Authority ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ril 28, 1960. On December 29, 1959, temporary permits were granted for one month and after the expiry of those permits, another set of temporary permits was issued for another month ending with March 31, 1960. It is true that under the second proviso to s. 62 temporary permits could not have been granted more than once, suit a transgression of that provision by the Regional Transport Authority does not affect the question raised. As the provisions of the Act do not prescribe any time limit fort the disposal of an application for renewal of permits, we cannot hold that the Regional Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction in rejecting the applications some months after the date of the expiry of the terms of the permits. If there was any inordinate delay in the disposal of an application, it was open to the affected party to ask for a mandamus to direct the appropriate Authority to dispose of the petition within a reasonable time. But no such step was taken by the petitioner, though it filed a writ petition in the High Court for other reliefs. 8. The next question is whether the Regional Transport Authority exceeded its power in rejecting the applications, In this context it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sense the Authority may refuse to keep an application on its file by rejecting it either at the time it is filed or thereafter. It does not connote any time but only describes the scope of the duty under that clause. It can only mean that the Authority cannot dispose of the application on merits but can reject it as not maintainable. Any other meaning given to this word leads to an anomalous position, for even if the approval of a scheme had been brought to the notice of the Regional Transport Authority, it would have to order the renewal of the permit and thereafter it would have to cancel the permit, presumably, on an application filed by the State Transport Undertaking. We do not think that the legislature used the word "entertain" to bring about that result. A wider meaning of the word "entertain" would enable the smooth working of the provisions of the section and we have no reason to accept the narrower meaning suggested by the learned counsel. We, therefore, hold that the Regional Transport Authority had power under s. 68F(2) of the Act in the circumstances of the case to reject the application filed by the petitioner. 10. The next contention of the learned counsel is tha....