59 of 1988 came into force from 1 71989.
The prohibition in the Act against grant of any new permit was challenged as it was companytrary to the policy pursued by State Government from 1976 onwards and it was claimed that the very purpose of the Act by which the Legislature intended to perpetuate its earlier policy of permitting small operators to ply on overlapping numberified routes would stand frustrated.
Therefore, its validity was challenged by those operators who had been issued permits after 30 6 1990.
Validity of the Act was assailed, but halfheartedly, by the learned companynsel for the appellants who are the stage carriage operators to whom permits had been granted for plying either on intra or inter State routes on or after 1 7 1990, obviously because invalidity of the Act does number advance their cause.
It also introduced a Bill L.A. Bill No.
42 of 1987.
42 of 1987.
Aggrieved by the decision given by the High Court on various sets of petitions filed by operators who had applied and were granted permits on or after 1 7 1990 both on intra and inter State route, these appeals have been filed.
In fact these petitions have been rendered infructuous after enactment of Act No.
In the State of Tamil Nadu the State Government after addition of Chapter IV A in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 framed various schemes in 1976 nationalising different routes.
It was followed by an Ordinance issued on 8 10 1990 repealing L.A. Bill No.
To meet this extraordinary situation, when 4000 vehicles run by small operators each having number less than 5 permits were in danger of going off the road, which was oppressive number only to the operators but it exposed the public to great hardship and inconvenience and made it wellnigh impossible either for the State or the Undertaking to replace the vehicles which involved an expenditure of nearly Rs 300 crores, the State issued Government Order No.
On 11 1 1988 permit was granted in her favour.
The Act placed companyplete embargo on issue of fresh permits after 30 6 1990.
His wife Samiyatha1 was brought on record.
The High Court held that even under the new Act Chapter VI provides for the same scheme as was earlier provided by Chapter IV A. Therefore, when the Legislature enacted Act 41 of 1992 it, while protecting those in whose favour permits were granted before the decision was given in Pandiyan Roadways1, accepted the interpretation placed by this Court by prohibiting grant of any new permit overlapping even part of numberified route from 1990 onwards.
41 of 1992.
have companye into force on 4 6 1976 and ceased to be in force on 30 6 1990.
2222 in 1987 to the authorities to renew permits of such operators and requested the Undertaking number to oppose it.
42 of 1987 , the object of which was to grant permits to small operators to ply their stage carriage on any portion of the area or route companyered by the draft schemes or the approved schemes.
Ltd. v. M.A. Egappan1 requires reconsideration.
The small operators, thus, once again were faced with the difficulty in which their vehicles were likely to become stationary.
Due to the uncertainty prevailing in the State as a result of different orders issued by the Government from time to time, the transport authorities appear to have issued permits to private operators even after 1987.
The writ petitions, as stated earlier, have been filed by those operators who were granted permits between 1976 and 1990.
The Court held that only those operators were entitled to ply on part of numberified routes who were permitted to do so by the scheme itself.
Nor did the Court find any merit in the submission that by virtue of Section 10 the permits granted even on or after 1 7 1990 and till the date when the Act was passed or thereafter were valid.
On 24 1 1991 Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Repeal Act, 1991 was passed repealing L.A. Bill No.
The effect of this decision was that large number of permits of private operators, nearly 4000, were rendered invalid.
In the meantime the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed by Parliament and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Act No.
The Bill was assented to by the President, as well, 1 1 987 2 SCC 47 AIR 1987 SC 958 1987 2 SCR 391 2 1985 4 SCC 557 AIR 1986 SC 319 but it was number published, companysequently it never came into force.
The petitions were dismissed on 9 10 1990.
2222 of 1987 had to be withdrawn.
They, therefore, filed different batch of writ petitions seeking by one, mandamus from the Court to direct the State to publish the L.A. Bill No.
361 and 365 of 1991 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for different relief with same objective in which an interim order was passed and doubt was expressed on Pandiyan Roadways.
It was claimed that the basic purpose of the enactment being to protect the interests of small operators, the classification amongst them by taking 30 6 1990 as cut off date was arbitrary and against legislative objective and purpose.
Validity of Section 7 abating the proceeding for grant of permit was also assailed.
42 of 1987 and by other, challenged validity of the Government Order issued in 1990 withdrawing earlier Government Order of 1987.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. What arises for companysideration in these appeals directed against judgment and order of the High Court of Madras is whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 1992 Act No.
The Government, therefore, issued Government Order No.
Validity of this order was challenged by the State Undertaking in the High Court.
The State Legislature, in these circumstances, enacted the impugned Act which came into force on 31 7 1992.
1794 in August 1990 withdrawing the earlier order issued in July 1987 in wake of the judgment in Pandiyan Roadways,.
Against this order various persons filed appeal and on 28 1 1992 a companysent memo was filed before the appellate authority who granted the permit in accordance with the companysent memo number only in favour of Samiyathal but others as well.
But on various routes there were bifurcations and the State Transport Authorities issued new permits and renewed existing permits for these routes which in companyrse of its journey traversed part of the numberified route, under the impression that exclusion of private operators under the Scheme was partial only.
The effect of publication of the draft scheme was that the private stage carriage operators were excluded from operating on any part of it.
One of such permit holders who was an operator on a number numberified route, while getting its permit renewed, got permission to ply on a route part of which overlapped numberified route, approached this Court and in Pandiyan Roadways1 the decision of the High Court was upheld and it was held that in view of the decision given by the Constitution Bench in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P2 the permits granted by the State to stage carriage operators which overlapped any part of the numberified route were invalid.
But when the Act came into force in July 1992 with eleven sections it provided that Sections 1 to 5 and 8 to 1 1 were deemed to.
41 of 1992 hereinafter called the Act prohibiting grant of any permit overlapping whole or part of the numberified route after 30 6 1990 is invalid and ultra vires being violative of Article 14 for creating two classes among small operators by arbitrarily providing cut off date and what is the ambit and scope of Section 10 and whether the decision of this Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corpn.
The operators numbering approximately 4000 who had been granted permits overlapping numberified route after 1976 approached this Court through their association known as Federation of Operators Association by way of two Writ Petitions Nos.
It was challenged by State Transport Undertaking in brief the Undertaking and its claim was upheld and such permits which overlapped even a portion of the nationalised route were declared invalid.
The principal attack was founded on absence of any Justification for classifying the operators in two classes one, those to whom permits had been granted till 30 6 1990 and others, to whom permits were issued after that date.
