Bhagwati, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Allahabad rejecting a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal confirming an order of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the application of the appellant for renewal of his stage carriage permit for the route Nagina-Jaspur.
(2.) The route Nagina-Jaspur lies within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority Bareilly. The appellant and his brother Mohd. Afaq held a stage carriage permit for this route for some years and it was due to expire on 1st July 1971. Before the expiration of the period of permit, however, a scheme was prepared and published by the State Transport Undertaking under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and this scheme covered the route Nagina-Jaspur. The publication of this scheme did not effect the validity of the permit of the appellant and Mohd. Afaq and they continued to ply their motor vehicles on the route Nagina-Jaspur on the strength of the permit. During the currency of the permit, several amendments of a far-reaching character were made in the Act by Act 56 of 1969 and sub-sections (1-A) to (1-D) were introduced in Section 68-F after sub-section (1). These sub-sections are material and they may be reproduced as follows: "68F (IA) Where any scheme has been published by a State Transport Undertaking under Section 68-C, that Undertaking may apply for a temporary permit, in respect of any area or route or portion thereof specified in the said scheme, for the period intervening between the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, and where such application is made, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority as the case may be, shall, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of vehicles operating in such are or route or portion thereof, issue the temporary permit prayed for by the State Transport Undertaking. (1B) A temporary permit issued in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1A) shall be effective,- (i) if the scheme is published under sub-section (3) of Section 68D, until the grant of the permit to the State Transport Undertaking under sub-section (1), or (ii) if the scheme is not published under sub-section (3) of Section 68D, until the expiration of the one week from the date on which the order under sub-section (2) of Section 68D is made. (1C) If no application for a temporary permit is made under sub-section (1-A), the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant, subject to such conditions as it may think fit, temporary permit to any person in respect of the area or route or portion thereof specified in the scheme and the permit so granted shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route or portion thereof. (1D) Save as otherwise provided in sub-sec. (1A) or sub-section (1C), no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication under Section 68C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person for any class of road transport service in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme: Provided that where the period of operation of a permit in relation to any area, route or portion thereof specified in a scheme published under Section 68C 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 Section 68-D." Since the permit of the appellant and Mohd. Afaq was going to expire on 1st July, 1971, the appellant made an application for renewal of the permit under the proviso to sub-section (1D) of Section 68-F and submitted the application to the Regional Transport Authority on 22-3-1971. When the application came up for hearing before the Regional Transport Authority, there was admittedly no objector against it, but the Regional Transport Authority took the view that under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 58 an application for renewal of a permit is required to be made not less than 120 days before the date of expiry of the permit and even if there is delay in making the application, it can be condoned under sub-section (3) of Section 58 but only if it is a delay of not more than 15 days and since in the present case the application for renewal of the permit was made by the appellant on 22nd March, 1971, it was late by 18 days and hence the delay was not capable of being condoned and in this view, the Regional Transport Authority by an order D/- 28-3-1973 rejected the application for renewal of the permit as time-barred.
(3.) The appellant preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and in the appeal the appellant challenged the correctness of the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, however, agreed with the view taken by the Regional Transport Authority and held that in view of the specific prohibition contained in sub-section (3) read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 58 it was not competent to the Regional Transport Authority to condone the delay in making of the application for renewal of the permit, since the delay was of more than 15 days. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal also observed that in any even the material produced before the Regional Transport Authority did not make out any sufficient cause for not making the application for renewal of the permit within time and hence even if there was no statutory bar against condonation of delay of more than 15 days, this was not a fit case in which the delay should be condoned. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal accordingly confirmed the order of the Regional Transport Authority.;