# CHERAN TRANSPORT CO. LTD v. KANAN LORRY SERVICE AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 389
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-12-10
- **Case number:** Writ Petition Nos. 5881 and 5884 of 1975
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, v. R. KRISHNA IYER
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/cheran-transport-co-ltd-v-kanan-lorry-service-and-another-7048
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act-Secs. 58, 68-C. 68D(3), 68F(lD)-Stage
carriag11
opertltor-Permit-Renewal-Renewal application made within time-Whether
can be defeated by Pμblication of Schem,e.
A
B
The respondent was a Stage Carriage Operator whose two permits were
t() 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
C
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.
The State withdrew the
draft 8Cheme under part IV-A for some technical reasons and republished in
July 1975, after the appellants' permits bad expired. Section 68F(ID) provides
that :110 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 section
provides that if a permit expires after the publication of the
scheme
such
D
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(ID) the Regiooal Transport Authority
rejected the prayer for renewal.
The High Court set aside that order
and
directed the grant of the renewal.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD : I. At the time the respondents' permit expired a draft scheme had
E
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The fact that the draft scheme was later withdrawn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 rights to a renewal. Renewal of the permit however would be
to the extent contemplated by section 68F(ID). [3900-HJ
2.
(a) No permit or renewal except to the extent expressly saved by sec·
tion 68F(ID) can be granted by the Regional Transport Authonly
durin~
the period between the date of publication of any scheme and
the date
of
publication of the approved scheme. [391C]
(b) If a permit expires after the publication of any draft scheme
MJch
permit is eligible for renewal for a limited period as set out in the proviso. The
special pro"1ision contained in that proviso cannot be stretched on the ground
of possihle anomalies or unjust consequences to cover permits expiJiug even
before the publication of the draft scheme.
Where language is plain the interpretation cannot take the shape of addition or interstitial legislation. [39!C-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 sny. if he
F
G
sets in motion the legal machinery for the grant of renewal as laid down in
sedion 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
H
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 publis~ed, suffer the ban
of s. 68F(1D). However, no permit can ensure beyond the time of the publication of the approved scheme. [391D-FJ
A
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.1

## Text

CHERAN TRANSPORT CO. LTD.
v.
KANAN LORRY SERVICE AND ANOTHER
December 10, 1976
389
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND v. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act-Secs. 58, 68-C. 68D(3), 68F(lD)-Stage
carriag11
opertltor-Permit-Renewal-Renewal application made within time-Whether
can be defeated by Pμblication of Schem,e.
A
B
The respondent was a Stage Carriage Operator whose two permits were
t() 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
C
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.
The State withdrew the
draft 8Cheme under part IV-A for some technical reasons and republished in
July 1975, after the appellants' permits bad expired. Section 68F(ID) provides
that :110 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 section
provides that if a permit expires after the publication of the
scheme
such
D
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(ID) the Regiooal Transport Authority
rejected the prayer for renewal.
The High Court set aside that order
and
directed the grant of the renewal.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD : I. At the time the respondents' permit expired a draft scheme had
E
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 rights to a renewal. Renewal of the permit however would be
to the extent contemplated by section 68F(ID). [3900-HJ
2.
(a) No permit or renewal except to the extent expressly saved by sec·
tion 68F(ID) can be granted by the Regional Transport Authonly
durin~
the period between the date of publication of any scheme and
the date
of
publication of the approved scheme. [391C]
(b) If a permit expires after the publication of any draft scheme
MJch
permit is eligible for renewal for a limited period as set out in the proviso. The
special pro"1ision contained in that proviso cannot be stretched on the ground
of possihle anomalies or unjust consequences to cover permits expiJiug even
before the publication of the draft scheme.
Where language is plain the interpretation cannot take the shape of addition or interstitial legislation. [39!C-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 sny. if he
F
G
sets in motion the legal machinery for the grant of renewal as laid down in
sedion 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
H
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 publis~ed, suffer the ban
of s. 68F(1D). However, no permit can ensure beyond the time of the publication of the approved scheme. [391D-FJ
A
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil
Appeal
Nos. 13491350/76.
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.
B
V. P. Raman, Addl. Sol. General of India, (Mrs.) N. G. Krishna
Iyengar, Shri Narain, K. l. John, D. N. Mishra for the Appellant.
c
D
E
F
G
H
F. S. Nariman, M. N. Rangachari, A. R. Ramanathan, Jayaraman,
M. M. L. Srivastava and A. T. M. Sampath for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byKRISHNA IYER, J. The short question, involving a point of construction of s. 68-F(ID), 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 requirements of the proviso to s. 68-F(lD) and entitled the appellant 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(lD) 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 appeals ..
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 pub-
. lished.
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(lD).
Before we consider the legal question we may read s. 68-F(lD).
"(lD) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (lA)
or sub-section (lG), 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
CHERAN TRANSPORT LTD. v. KANAN LORRY SERVICE (Krishna Iyer,/.) 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 operation 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 Section 68-D."
Three propositions plainly emerge.
No permit or renewal, except to the extent eipres.sly saved by
s. 68-F(lD), can be granted by the RT.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 anomalie8 or linjust 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
propositioill 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 renew!jl 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 application 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 prolonged 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(lD). However, no permit can enure beyond the time of
the publimtion 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 accepted
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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
as to costs.
H
P.H.P.
?-1546SCT (76
Appeals dismissed.