N. D. Ojha, J. - (1.) THIS Special Ap peal has been filed against the judg ment of a learned Single Judge dismis sing a writ petition filed by the appel lant. The appellant. Brii Bahadur Lal, held a regular stage carriage permit on Panari-Sitapur route which was to ex pire on May 28, 1970. Before that date, however, a scheme was published by the State Transport Undertaking under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for nationalizing that route. The appellant applied for renewal of his permit on November 17. 1969 and the Regional Transport Authority by its resolution dated April 24. 1970 renewed the per mit for three years with effect from May 29. 1970. The scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act as afore said was approved and the said scheme as approved was published on August 29. 1970 as required by Section 68-D (3) of the Act. On the scheme being so published the Regional Transport Au thority cancelled the appellant's per mit on September 12. 1970 and subse quently granted him a compensatory permit vide its resolution dated Janu ary 10/11, 1972 on Jhansi-Mahoba route. On this route. Noor Mohammad, res pondent No. 3 held a temporary permit which was due to expire on May 31, 1972. He had also applied for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on this route which was pending on Janu ary 10/11. 1972. the date on which the appellant was granted a compensatory permit on this route. The said Noor Mohammad filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant of the compensatory permit to the appellant. The Tribunal allowed the revision of Noor Moham mad on June 2. 1972 and quashed the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated January 10/11. 1972 aforesaid. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Aggrieved Brij Bahadur Lal has filed this Special Appeal.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the ap pellant has made three submissions:- (1) That the permit issued under the Act is a physical document and has to be actually cancelled notwithstanding that it ceased to be effective within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (1-D) of Section 68-F of the Act and that the State Transport Appellate Tri bunal was in error in holding that the appellant's permit having ceased to be effective under the proviso to sub-sec tion (1-D) of Section 68-F did not re quire any cancellation and that conse quently the appellant was not entitled to a compensatory hermit under Sec tion 68-G since that section applied only where a permit had been cancel led or modified under sub-section (1-D) (2) of Section 68-F; (2) That sub-section (21 of Section 68-G was independent of sub-section (1) of the said section and a compensatory permit could be granted to the appel lant under sub-section (2); and (3) That the provision contained in Section 68-G for the grant of a com pensatory permit only to those whose permit had been cancelled or modified under Section 68-F (1-D) (2) of the Act was hit by Article 14 of the Con stitution of India in so far as it exclud ed the benefit of a compensatory per mit to a person who held a renewed permit under the proviso to sub-section (1-D) of Section 68-F. Dealing with the first submis sion it is to be noted that sub-section (1-D) of Section 68-F lays down that save as otherwise provided under sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (1-C). no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication, under Section 68-C 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. In view of the mandatory prohibition afore said the appellant would not have been entitled to the renewal of his permit but for the proviso to the aforesaid sub section which authorises renewal of a permit for a limited period. The same proviso contains a specific stimulation that the permit so renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D. Section 68-G sub-clause (1) provides for the grant of compensation to the holder of an exist ing permit which has been cancelled or whose terms have been modified in the exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 68-F. Those two sub-clauses refer to an "existing permit". It is obvious that a permit can be cancel led or its terms can be modified only till it exists. Existing means that which is in existence. Existence in its turn means life. An existing permit there fore, means a living permit. Section 58 (a) of the Act lays down that a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit other than a temporary permit issued under Section 62 shall be effec tive without renewal for such period, not less than three years and not more than five years, as the Regional Trans port Authority may specify in the per mit. The maximum period for which a permit can be effective is five years. On the expiry of those five years the authority to ply a stage carriage would cease notwithstanding the fact that the holder of the permit may physically be in possession of it even after the expiry of five years. It is the period for which a permit remains effective which emerg es as the guiding factor and not the physical holding of a permit in deter mining the existence or life of the per mit. The proviso to sub-section (1-D) of Section 68-F which enables the issue of a permit for a limited period itself lays down the tenure or the life of such permit, namely till the publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D. A renewed permit issued under this proviso shall, therefore re main in life or be an existing permit only till the contingency referred to in the said proviso happens. In fact by operation of law it would be deemed to be one of the terms of the renewed permit that it shall cease to be effec tive on the publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D and can be treated to be void there after. In V. C. K. Bus Service v. The Regional Transport Authority. (AIR 1957 SC 489) a permit was renewed to be effective till the decision of a writ appeal. On the writ appeal being dismissed the question arose about the validity of the permit. It was held that the permit so renewed became ineffec tive at least as from the date on which the writ appeal was decided and that the Regional Transport Authority was right in treating it as having become void. It was also held that there was no legal obstacle to employing a condi tion in the permit even though no such condition specifically existed in it that the renewal should stand cancelled if the right of the appellant to the original permit was negatived by the High Court.
(3.) WE are therefore, of opinion that the words 'for a limited period' in the proviso to sub-section (1-D) of Sec tion 68-F mean the period which synchronizes with the publication of the notification of the approved scheme under Section 68-D (3) of the Act and even if the period mentioned in the renewed permit goes beyond the date of such publication the renewed permit ceases to be effective on the date of such publication. Thereafter it can be treated as void. It does not remain an existing permit nor does it require any cancellation under sub-section (2) of Section 68-F.;