. spots’ of tourist interest. . on record which may point to the invidiousness of :fixing a flat quota, .
" '§. SHAMSHUDDIN & ORS. ETC -
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. » April 18, 1984. [D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH ‘Misra, JJ | Motor Vehidles Act, 1939 as ‘amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendrhent)
* fixed by Central Government by Notification No.S.Q.22 dated December 19, 1977 — | Whether valid. ‘Power to ‘fix quota and power fo.grant all India permits—Whether a _ Separable.. The expression in respect of such -number of tourist vehicles as the : Central Government may, in-respect oft that State, specify i in this behalf—Whether:
severable.
In order to promote tourism, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was amended by the Motor Vehicles(Amendment) Act 56 of "1969. Sub-s. (7). _which was introduced in s. 63 by theeAmending Act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-g. (1) but subject to. any rules that may be | made under this Act,-any State Transport Authority may, for the purpose of - promoting tourism, grant permits valid for the -whole or any. part of India, . in réspect of such number of tourist Vehicles ‘as the Central Government may, in respect. of that State, specify in this behalf. In exercise of this power the “Central Government by its notification No. 8.0. 22dated December 19, 1977 ’ fixed a quota .of 50 asthe’ all India‘ tourist permits for each Staté. The petitioners challenged this quota as’ discriminatory and y olative of Art, M4 of
’ the Constitution. .
’ Dismissing the writ petitions,
HELD: It appears that s. 63 (7) was introduced after ascertaining the needs of developing tourist ttade. The Central Government fixed quota of 50° permits .for each State. It may be thata smaller State like Himachal Pradesh or Jammu and Kashmir may have larger number of places of tourist interest. Therefore, unless all the rélevant facts are placed ©
‘the petitioners contention that the quota is arbitray and violative of Art. ‘MM of the Constitution has no force. [528D- -F, 525E]
. . .
. Act 56 of 1969 5.63(7}-Interp retation of. Quota of 50 all India tourist permits .
Equally area-wise the biggest State Madhya Pradesh-may have few ao a
_ §. SHAMSHUDDIN ¥. KARNATAKA (Desai, J.) $23.
The Parlianient enacted Sub-s. (7) of s. 63 conferring an enabling power or Statc Transport Authority-to grant a permit yalid-for the whole of India. which but for the provision contained in Sub-s. (7) of s. 63 it was not entitled to" grant -and that this power to grant was subject to the conditicn that the Central Government will specify the quota. Therefore, the quota is not severable from the power to grant the permit. Assuming that the quota is igs seyerable from the epabling provision, no material has been placed on record to point out the needs of each State, the places of tourist interest, the influx of tourists, the facility for their boarding and lodging and the condition” of roads in respect of eacla State. Inthe absence of this fact situation, the - petitioners’ submission that the. expression, in respect of such fiumber of tourist vehicles as the Central Government may, in respect of that State, specify inthis behalf’ is severable and therefore the enabling patt of sub-s. (7). will permit State Transport Authority in each State to grant all India tourist permit keeping in- view the ‘need:of the tourists and the nceds of the State, cannot be examined on merits. [S27H, 528A-B, 527G]
It is recommended that in ‘view of the vast expanding tourist traffic the Centrat Governmegt must undertake an exercise ‘within a reasonable time and at regular intervals to re-evalute the quota of all India tourist permists to
. keep pace with developing notion of attracting tourists. f[529C-D] :
. ORIGINAL JuRISpICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 13033—38 . 13650—52, 13197, 13355—58, > 13389, . 1339397, 1300308," 13488,13654—67, 13850—58, 13790 to 13801, 13836—49, of 1983, 8—22,24—30, 34—35, 126-130 and 223-26 of 1984. |
“(Under article-32 of the ‘Constitution of India)
Advocates for-the appearing’ parties :
5.5. Javali, Mr. B.P. Singh, Ranyit Kumar, Shanti Bhushan, K.R. Nagaraja, K.S, Hegde, §.K. Prasad, K.N: Bhatt, Ms. Madhu Mulchandani, RB. Datar, N.K. Sharma, P.N. Ramalingam, R. Ramachandran, V.K. Verma, K.G. Bligat, Addl. Sol. General, M.N. Shroff; P.K. Pillai, Mrs. H. Wahi, M. Veercppa, Swawaj
_ Kaushal, Vineet Kumar, S. Chatterjee and J.R. Das.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered. by
- Desat, J. The intrepid albeit affluent transport operators again succeeded in their none-too-lcgal designs to operate vehicles net by obtaining statutory permits but to put it mildly by abuse of the court’s process. - 7 — , oF s
RG
524. | "SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1964 3 3s, c. R.
By a judgment . rendered by ‘this Court in S. Kannan and. — Ors. v. Secretary, Karnataka State Road Transport Authority etc.¥. - ‘ on August 29, 1983, this Court held that grant of 4 temporary all-
India tourist permit is foreign to the very concept of.all-India, tourist permit as envisaged . by subss. (7) of Sec.63 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 and accordingly. an unusually -large number of temporary all-India tourist permits obtained persuant to the interim
. relief granted by this Court ‘were. set at naught. Some.of the present petitioners were - directly parties to the petitions disposed’ of by. that judgment. Indefatigueable as‘they are, they again approached. this Court by a camouflage’ of challenging the validity of quota of fifty such permits fixed by the Central Government in
"respect of all-India tourist permit for eath State. as per Notification
No. S.0; 22 dated December | 19, 1977 as also. failure to fill-in the vacancies by the State Transport Authority in Karnataka State.to — the extent of the sanctioned quota. The challenge was a Clever, camouflage, the sole, underlying motive beipg to obtain some interim relief by which again’ temporary permits in compliance
_ with the interim relief granted by this Court may be obtained and .
the impermissible trade: being carried on without a break. To unravel this plot engineered by the petitioners, it may be mentioned . , - that ‘even though the Court by the judgment inthe case of - S.‘Kannan & Ors. rendered. on August 29, 1983 set at naught all temporary all-India. tourist permits obtained as-a consequence of
-the interim relief granted by this Court, .at the special request of - some of the petitioners, the Court. keeping in view the investment made by the petitioners in providing tourist vehicles continued the | interim relief which kept operative the temporary permits till: December 31, 1983. The present petitions were filed somewhere in-November, 1983. By the order dated Nov€mber 23, 1983 notice
December 16, 1983 in the renewed attempt the Court granted interim relief to the effect that those operators of vehiclés who had held ‘all-India tourist permit’ on October 23, 1983 and who were
- ‘plying t their vehicles shall be permitted to» ply the vehicles until April 30, 1984. It is necessary to point out that the petitioners who | obtained this interim relief were plying their vehicles. on October
—~@ fee 156A
'. directed tobe issued both onthe main petition as well as on the. ~~ stay application was made returnable on.December 6, 1983. The ‘petitioners were in no @urry to snatch.the-interim relief because
_ the,ordermade earlier had infused tife into their so-called tempo- rary permits and kept them operative upto December 31, 1983. On:
§. SHAMSHUDDIN ¥, KARNATAKA (Desai, J.) - 525
. 23, 1983 under an earlier interim relief which. had exhausted itself ‘on. August 29, 1983 and this very relevant aspect which would be determinative of the issues involved in the matter appeared not to have been brought even to the notice of the Court which granted interim relief. . ._
The respondents appeared and pointed out the facts hereinabove delineated with the result ‘that the petitions were set down © for hearing on March 23, 1984. -
Mr. Shanti Bhushan who led on behalf of ‘the petitioners raised three contentions. It'was urged that even though a quota of 50 tourist permits has been sanctioned by the Central Govern- — ment for each State, the State of Karnataka has not, utilised the quota tothe maximum and there are either 25 or 14 vacancies . which have beech kept unfilled for a long time and therefore, a
‘mandamus must be issued directing the State Transport Authority,
Karnataka to perform its statutory -duty by considering the applications received for all-India tourist permits and dispose of the _ same within a reasofiable time. It was next contended that if the
~ object: underlying the enactment . of Sec.63(7) was to promote tourism and facilitate movement of tourists, a flat quota of 50° permits for each State completely ignoring the needs of the State, capacity to cater to the tourist traffic, significant number of places of tourist interest, the local population’ and other relevant factors,
‘Is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and the Central Govern- ment must be directed to refix the quota. The last submission specifically referring to the State Transport Authority of Karnataka was that it has failed to perform its statutory duty by not granting all-India tourist permit in ‘existing 14 vacancies according to the State Transport Authority and 25 vacancies according to the petitioners, and that by a mandamus the State Transport Authority should be directed to examine all the applications received for the same and to grant permits and thereby perform its statutory duty.
_ The mere enumeration of the contentions raised by Mr. |
- Shanti. Bhushan shows . that the first and. the third contentions are almost identical except that the fact situation with regard to the existing number-of vacancies in the sanctioned quota of all-India tourist permit for Karnataka State isin controversy. It would have been necessary to probe in depth the Statutory duty or State Transport Authority on’ whom power is conferred by Sec.63(7) to grant permit valid for the whole or any. part of India for the
~
52060000 _ SUPREME COURT REPORTS © 119893 sex, | purpose of promoting tourism. “But . we: are spared this exercise because Mr. Swaraj Kaushal, learned counsel who appeared for the State of Karnatdka undertook that the State Transport Autho: tity would dispose of all applications pending before it for a permit as contemplated by Sec.63(7). by “April 30, 1984. He also stated that the State Transport Authority . of Karnataka State will as far as possible fill in all the vacancies if sufficient number of applica-
_ ‘tions are pending before it and there are eligible -applicants among:
them. We leave it to the State Tz ransport: Authority to determine. - how many vacancies at. present exist and fill i in the same by consi-
- dering the . applications pending. with it for the type of permit as contemplated by, Sec, 63(7).
Therefore; there remains one contention to be examined by
- us. It was urged that Regional: Transport Authority can grant a -stage carriage’ora contract carriage permit, as the case may be, valid for operation in the region and when countersigned by the...
State Transport Authority valid for contiguous regions in the same State. A necessity was felt that tourist ‘vehicles having an inter- State and intra-state operational area throughout the country, may be licensed by: all-India tourist permits so that facility of easy road” transport is available.to both. the domestic and foreign tourists. To’ achieve,this end and with a view to promoting tourism, sub-s.(7)
was introduced in Sec, 63 of Motor Vehicles-Act,. 1939: by Motor ~ Vehicles (Amendment) Act 56 of 1969 which reads as under : 7
63(7) : Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- © ‘section (1) but subject to any rules. that may be made under this Act, ‘ any State Transport Authority may, for the purpose of promoting tourism, grant permits valid for the .* ‘whole or any part of India, in “respect of such number of '.. tourist vehicles as.the Central Government may, in resp- ‘ect of that State, specify in’ this behalf, and the provisions - of Sections 49, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 59-A, 60, 61 and 64 ‘shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to. such permits :
"Provided that preference shall be given to applications | for permits from—
(i): the India Tourism Development Corporation ; ii) a State Tourism Development Corporation ; ;
(iii) a State Tourist Department ; ;
“
S. SHAMSHUDDIN v, KARNATAKA (Desai, J.) 527
(iv) such operators’ of “tourist” cars or such travel agents as may be approved in _ this behalf by the Ministry of the Central Government dealing in tourism.” The power to grant permit valid for the whole or any part of India was conferred on the. State Transport Authority of each
‘State. To guard against the big fish not swallowing the smaller — one, Parliament took care to statutorily provide that the Central Government will have power to fix. quota of such permits that can - be granted by State Transport Authority in each State. In exercise of this power, the Central Government has fixed a quota of 50, ~ euphemistically -called, all-India tourist permit, but statutorily ‘described as permit valid for whole of India for each State by the Notification No.§.@.22 dated December 19, 1977. _ ,
-Mr. Shanti Bhushan pointed out that the large and sprawling
States like Maharashtia, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu
-and Uttar Pradesh each have-a quota of 50 permits and also
Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, -etc. which are geographically and .
_ populationwise small. States have the same quota. It was urged that this equal treatment of unequals: is clearly arbitrary and violative of Art.14. It was submitted that quota. can be fixed with a view to promoting tourism by keeping in view the population,
_ places of tourist interest, facility for. tourist halt, conditions of roads etc. and that having not been. done the fixation of flat quota of 50 permits for each State must be struck down as discriminatory and arbitrary. :
While hearing this argument, a question was posed to Mr.
- Shanti Bhushan that if the ‘quota of 50 permits for each State is struck down, not a single | State Transport Authority in any State will be entitled to grant a single tourist, permit because fixation of quota,.is an integral part of Sec. 63(7). Mr. Shanti Bhushan ' urged that the - expression in respect of. such number of tourist vehicles as the Central Government may, in respect of that State, specify in this behalf is severable and therefore, the enabling part of Sub-s.(7) will permit State Transport Authority in each State to grant the all-India tourist permit keeping in view the needs of the tourists and . the needs of the State. We are not, persuaded to accept this submission. The Parliament enacted a sub-s(7) conferring an enabling power on State Transport Authority
528. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.r, to. grant a permit valid for the whole of “India which but for the provision contained in sub-s.(7) of Sec. 63 . it was not entitled to . grant and that this power to grant was. ‘subject to the condition ‘that the Central Government will specify ‘the quota. Therefore, the quota is not severable from the Power. to grant the permit. Assuming that. the. quota is severable from the: enabling provision, no material has been placed on record to point out the. needs of each State, the places “of ‘tourist, interest the influx. of , -. tourists, the facility for their boarding and lodging and the condition of roads in-respect of each State. In the absence of this fact - situation, | the contention cannot be examined on merits.
Itmay be pointed out that-Sec. 63- A ‘envisages - setting ‘up’ of an Inter-State Transport Commission - for the purpose .of deve- loping, co-ordinating . and regulating the operation of transport — vehicles i in respect of any areaor route common to two or more States (hereinafter referred to as inter-State region) and perform- ‘ing such other functions as may be prescribed under sec: 63-C. It’ was not made clear whether the Inter-State Transport Commission ‘has been set up but it appears that Séc. 63(7) was introduced after - ascertaining the needs of: developing tourist trade. The Central Government. fixed quota of 50 permits for each State. It may be that a smaller. State like Himachal Pradesh or Jammu and Kashmir _ may have larger number of places of tourist interest. Equally area-wise the ‘biggest State Madhya. Pradesh,may have few spots. of tourist interest. Therefore, unless all the relevant facts are placed -" on record, which. may point to,the invidiousness of fixing.a flat - quota, the contention of. Mr. Shanti Bhushan does not commend * to us and it may be rejected. .
Mr. Javali, learned counsel: ift’some of the petitions urged that notification No.S.0.22 dated _December,19, 1977 specifying . the number of tourist vehicle of all States at.50 each suffers from the vice of non-application of- mind. It'was said that the notification does not disclose as to what relevant factors were taken into consideration for fixing the quota. The contention thus ‘ taised is the same contention raised by Mr. Shanti Bhushan under a different garb and must ‘be rejected for the same reasong.
!. It.v was urged that the Central Government should. be asked to refix the quota keeping: in view the change in the steep rise ip i
$. SHAMSHUDDIN y. KARNATAKA (Desai, J.) 529 the influx of tourists from 1977 to 1984. It was submitted that with the rapid increase in tourist traffic, cheaper , and speedy air transport and a new culture’ of augmenting knowledge by visit to places of historical interest has increased manifold tourist traffic.
_ It was urged that tourism. is a well-recognised mode for earning foreign exchange badly needed for economic development. It was
- then urged that better facilitities would attract more tourists. It was urged that a period of 7 years provides a water-shed re-evaluating the demands of time and needs.'for augmenting the quota fixed way-back in December, 1977, There is considerable force in this submission. We: are of the opinion that in view of the fast expanding tourist traffic, the Central Government must undertake an exercise at regular intervals. to re- -evaluate the quota of afl-India’. |
_ tourist permits to keep pace ‘with developing notion of attracting — tourists. We therefore, recommend to the Central Government to undertake this exercise within a reasonable time.
As we find no merit in any of the contention, all petitions fail and are dismissed with costs.
HSK, Petitions dismissed.