{"id":203891,"date":"1972-05-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-05-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972"},"modified":"2015-08-03T10:30:24","modified_gmt":"2015-08-03T05:00:24","slug":"d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972","title":{"rendered":"D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And … on 4 May, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And … on 4 May, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1674, \t\t 1973 SCR (1) 562<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nD.   M. THIPPESWAMY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE MYSORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/05\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nGROVER, A.N.\nMITTER, G.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 1674\t\t  1973 SCR  (1) 562\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1973 SC 534\t (4,5,6)\n\n\nACT:\nMotor  Vehicles Act, 1939-Ss. 63(1), 68(c)     and  68(F)-An\nexisting   permit    holder'-meaning\t   of-Who\t can\ncancel\t   an\t   existing permit of a\t Transport  operator\nunder s. 68F(2)\t  of the Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant, a transport operator, obtained a permit\tfrom\nthe  Regional Transport Authority for an  inter-State  route\nfrom  Mysore  State  to Andhra Pradesh.\t  Even\tbefore\tthis\npermit was issued to him, the State of Mysore had notified a\ndraft scheme under s. 68(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,\nproviding for the operation of the trunk routes by the State\nTransport undertaking in the Bellary District.\nM.S.  R.T.C.,  a  State\t Transport  Undertaking\t and  others\nobjected to the issue of the permit to the appellant but the\nE.T.A.\tin  Mysore  State  over.  ruled\t their\t objections.\nAggrieved  by  the  said order,\t M.S.R.T.C.  &\tother  rival\nclaimants   appealed  before  the  Mysore  State   Transport\nAppellate  Tribunal.   Meanwhile, the  Government  issued  a\nnotification  u\/s  68(3)  ,of the Act  approving  the  draft\nscheme\tissued\tby it earlier.\tOne of the  clauses  of\t the\nscheme\tknown  as Bellary scheme, provided  that  the  State\nTransport  Undertaking will operate services on\t all  routes\nexcept\tto the portions of the inter-district  routes  lying\noutside the Bellary district.\nThe  existing permit holders were allowed to continue  their\noperations  in inter-State routes subject to  the  condition\nthat  their  permits shall be rendered\tineffective  by\t the\ncompetent  authority  for the over-lapping  portion  in\t the\ndistrict of Bellary.  Thereafter, the M.S.R.T.C. applied for\npermits u\/s 68 F for the routes mentioned under the  Bellary\nscheme.\t  Till\tthen  the appellant  had  not  obtained\t the\ncounter signature of the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra  Pradesh\nas required u\/s 63(1) of the Act.\nThe  appeal filed by M.S.R.T.C. was dismissed by the  Mysore\nState  Transport Appellate Authority and M.S.R.T.C. went  up\nin appeal before Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal.   During\nthe pendency of that appeal, the appellant obtained counter-\nsignatures of the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh for his\ninter-State permit.  The permit issued to the appellant\t was\nrenewed by the R.T.A. in Mysore State and duly countersigned\nby the concerned R.T.A. Andhra Pradesh.\nIn  1970, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal allowed\t the\nappeal\tfiled by the M.S.R.T.C. and set aside the  grant  in\nfavour of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was\nnot  an existing permit holder and, therefore, not  entitled\nto  operate in the route in question.  Appellant  challenged\nthat decision before the High Court by filing a writ but  it\nwas dismissed.\tOn appeal by special leave to this Court  it\nwas  contended\ton behalf of the appellant  that  since\t the\nappellant's  permit had been countersigned by the  concerned\nR.T.A.\tin  Andhra  Pradesh before the\tpermit\t_granted  to\nM.S.R.T.C., the appellant must be considered as an  existing\npermit\tholder\tas contemplated by  the\t scheme.   Secondly,\nunder  the  'Bellary  Scheme',\tthere  was  only  a  partial\nexclusion  and not total exclusion.  Therefore all that\t the\nR.T.A.\tcould  have  done under s. 68F(2) was  to  make\t his\npermit from Bellary Town to Bellary border ineffective-\t and\nnot  to\t cancel\t his permit alto-ether\tand  lastly,  Mysore\nRevenue\t Appellate  Tribunal could not\thave  cancelled\t his\npermit.\t Only R.T.A. could do so under s. 68F(2).\n563\nDismissing the appeal,\nHELD:\t  (i)  The  appellant  was not\tan  existing  permit\nholder\tat  any rate on July 28, 1964  when  the  M.S.R.T.C.\napplied\t for a permit for the route in question.   In  Abdul\nGafoor\tv.  State  of Mysore,<\/a> [1962] 1\tS.C.R.\t909  it\t was\nobserved  by  this  Court that when a  scheme  prepared\t and\npublished   under  s.  68-C  has  been\tapproved   and\t the\napplication has been made in the proper manner, nothing more\nremains\t to be decided by the Regional\tTransport  Authority\nand  it\t has no option to refuse the grant  of\tthe  permit.\nFurther, the date on which the transport undertaking applies\nu\/s. 68F(1) for the permit, that must be date with reference\nto  which  the expression \"existing permit holder\"  must  be\ninterpreted. [567 H]\nT.   N.\t  Raghunatha   Reddy  v.  Mysore   State   Transport\nAuthority,<\/a> [1970] 3 S.C.R. 780 referred to.\n(ii) Under  the\t Bellary  scheme,  the\tonly  persons  whose\npermits\t are saved are those existing permit holders on\t the\ninter-State routes and not all existing Permit holders.\t Be-\nfore the permit holders can be considered as existing permit\nholders\t of  the concerned inter-State, they must  not\tonly\nhave  obtained a permit from the concerned R.T.A., in  their\nhome  State,  they  must have  also  obtained  the  counter-\nsignature  of  the concerned States.   Until  they  obtained\ncountersignature  of  these, they cannot  be  considered  as\nexisting permit holders of the concerned inter-State routes.\n[568 G]\nC.A.  Nos.  1415-1443 of 1969 decided on October  17,  1967,\nreferred to.\n(iii)\t  It  is  true\tthat the  Mysore  Revenue  Appellate\nTribunal  could\t not  have  cancelled  the  permit  of\t the\nappellant.   Cancellation of the permit under s.  68F(2)  of\nthe  Act, can only be done by the concerned R.T.A.  but\t the\nR.T.A.\tin  the present case, did not take action  under  s.\n68F(2)\tinitially  because of the pendency  of\tthe  appeals\nbefore\tthe  appellate authorities and because of  the\tstay\norders\tissued by the High Court and this  Court.   However,\nthe  functions\tof  the\t R.T.A.\t under\ts.  68F\t are  merely\nministerial   and  on  this  technical\tground\talone,\t the\nappellant cannot succeed. [569 E]\nSatndard Motor Union Pvt.  Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors.,\n[1969] 1 S.C.R. 464, discussed and distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1167  of
\n1971.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nAugust\t10, 1971 of the Mysore High Court in  Writ  Petition
\nNo. 3244 of 1970.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K.\t Daphtary, A. K. Sen, S. S. Javali and B. P.  Singh,
\nfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Niren  De, Attorney-General for India, Shyamla Pappu and  J.
\nRamamurthi for respondent No. 4.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde, J.-The appellant is a transport operator.  He applied
\nfor  and obtained a permit from the R.T.A., Chitradurga\t for
\nthe  inter-state route from Chitradurga in Mysore  State  to
\nSrisaila in
\n564<\/span>
\nAndhra\tPradesh,  on  January 18, 1964.\t  Even\tbefore\tthis
\npermit\twas  issued  to him, the Government  of\t Mysore\t had
\nnotified a draft scheme under s. 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles
\nAct,  1939  (to\t be  hereinafter referred  to  as  the\tAct)
\nproviding for the operation of the trunk routes by the State
\nTransport Undertaking in the Bellary District.\t M.S.R.T.C.,
\na  State  Transport Undertaking and  other  rival  claimants
\nobjected  to  the  issue of the permit in  question  to\t the
\nappellant  but\ttheir  objections  were\t over-ruled  by\t the
\nR.T.A., Chitradurga.  Aggrieved by that order M.S.R.T.C. and
\nother  rival claimants took up the matter in appeal  to\t the
\nMysore\tState  Transport Appellate Tribunal.   Meanwhile  on
\nApril  18, 1964, the Government issued a notification  under
\ns.  68D(3)  of the Act approving the  draft  scheme  earlier
\nissued\tby  it.\t That scheme is known as  “Bellary  scheme”.
\nOne of the clauses in the scheme provides
\n“The  State Transport Undertaking will operate\tservices  on
\nall  the routes to the complete exclusion of  their  persons
\nexcept in regard to the portions of the interdistrict routes
\nlying  outside\tthe Bellary District.  The  existing  permit
\nholders on inter-state routes, may continue to operate\tsuch
\ninter-state  routes  subject  to the  condition\t that  their
\npermits\t shall\tbe  rendered ineffective  by  the  competent
\nauthority  for the over-lapping portion in the\tDistrict  of
\nBellary.”\n<\/p>\n
This scheme was published in the official gazette on May  7,
\n1964.\tThereafter M.S.R.T.C. applied for permits  under  s.
\n68F  on July 28, 1964 for the routes nationalised under\t the
\n“Bellary scheme”.  Till then the appellant had not  obtained
\nthe  countersignature  of  the concerned  R.T.A.  in  Andhra
\nPradesh\t as required by s. 63(1) of the Act for\t the  inter-
\nstate permit issued to him.  The appeal filed by  M.S.R.T.C.
\nwas  dismissed\tby  the Mysore\t State\tTransport  Appellate
\nTribunal  on  November\t2,  1964.   As\tagainst\t that  order
\nM.S.R.T.C. went up in appeal to the Mysore Revenue Appellate
\nTribunal  on December 9, 1964.\tDuring the pendency of\tthat
\nappeal,\t the  appellant obtained counter-signatures  of\t the
\nconcerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh on June 23, 1965 for\t his
\ninterstate  permit.  In June, 1967, the\t R.T.A.\t Chitradurga
\nrenewed\t the permit granted to the appellant on January\t 18,
\n1964.\tThat renewed permit, was duly countersigned  by\t the
\nconcerned  R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh.  On July 30, 1970,\t the
\nMysore\tRevenue Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal  filed
\nby  the M.S.R.T.C. and set aside the grant in favour of\t the
\nappellant  on  the ground that the appellant  not  being  an
\n“existing  permit holder” as contemplated by the  scheme  is
\nnot  entitled  to  operate in the route\t in  question.\t The
\nappellant  challenged that decision before the\tMysore\tHigh
\nCourt by means of a writ petition under
\n 565<\/span>
\nArt.  226 of the Constitution.\tThat petition was  dismissed
\nby  the\t Mysore High Court on August 10,  1971.\t  Thereafter
\nthis  appeal was brought after obtaining special leave\tfrom
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  A. K. Sen, appearing for the appellant  challenged\t the
\ncorrectness  of\t the decision of the High Court\t on  various
\ngrounds.   He  contended  that\tthe  “Bellary  scheme”\t was
\nimplemented  only on July 1, 1965 when the permit asked\t for
\nby  the M.S.R.T.C. was granted.\t But before that permit\t had
\nbeen granted, the appellant’s permit has been counter-signed
\nby the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh.  Hence he must be
\nheld to be an “existing permit holder on inter-state  route”
\nas  contemplated in the clause quoted above.   According  to
\nhim  a scheme notified under s. 68D(3) of the Act cannot  be
\nconsidered to have become effective until the R.T.A.  passes
\nappropriate orders under s. 68F(2).  His next contention was
\nthat  under the “Bellary scheme”, there was only  a  partial
\nexclusion  and not total exclusion.  Therefore all that\t the
\nR.T.A.\tcould have done under Border ineffective and not  to
\ncancel\this  permit.  His last contention was  that  in\t any
\nevent, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal could not\thave
\ncancelled his permit. Let us now examine the correctness  of
\nthese contentions.\n<\/p>\n
Section 68(C) provides
\n“Where\tany State transport undertaking is of  opinion\tthat
\nfor  the  purpose  of  providing  an  efficient,   adequate,
\neconomical and properly co-Ordinated road transport service,
\nit  is necessary in the public interest that road  transport
\nservices in general or any particular class of such  service
\nin relation to any area or route or portion  thereof  should
\nbe  run\t and  operated by the  State  transport\t undertaking
\nwhether\t to  the  exclusion, complete or  partial  of  other
\npersons\t or otherwise, the State transpoort undertaking\t may
\nprepare\t a  scheme giving particulars of the nature  of\t the
\nservices proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed
\nto be covered and such other particulars respecting  thereto
\nas may be prescribed, and     shall cause every such  scheme
\nto  be\tpublished in the official gazette and also  in\tsuch
\nother manner as the State Government may direct.”
\nThe  next  relevant section for our present  purpose  is  s.
\n68D(2) which says :\n<\/p>\n
“The State Government may, after considering the  objections
\nand  after  giving  an opportunity to the  objector  or\t his
\nrepresentatives and the representatives of the
\n566<\/span>
\nState  transport undertaking to be heard in the\t matter,  if
\nthey so desire, approve or modify the scheme.”
\nSub-s. (3) of s. 68(D) provides:\n<\/p>\n
“The  scheme  as approved or modified under  subsection\t (2)
\nshall then be published in the Official Gazette by the State
\nGovernment  and\t the same shall thereupon become  final\t and
\nshall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to
\nwhich  it  relates  shall be called  the  notified  area  or
\nnotified route.\n<\/p>\n
Provided  that\tno such scheme which relates to\t any  inter-
\nstate route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme  unless
\nit  has\t been  published in the Official  Gazette  with\t the
\nprevious approval of the Central Government.”
\nHerein\twe are not concerned with a scheme which relates  to
\nany  inter-state route.\t Section 68F requires the  concerned
\nR.T.A.\tto  issue  stage  carriage  permits  to\t the   State
\nTransport Undertaking in pursuance of an approved scheme  if
\nthat  undertaking  applies  for\t the  same,  notwithstanding
\nanything contrary contained in Chapter IV of the Act.\tSub-
\ns.  (2)\t of  s.\t 68F(2) as it stood  at\t the  relevant\ttime
\nprovided :\n<\/p>\n
“For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme  in
\nrespect\t of a notified area or notified route, the  Regional
\nTransport Authority may, by order-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  refuse to entertain any application for the renewal  of
\nany other permit;\n<\/p>\n
(b) cancel     any existing permit;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  modify the terms of any existing permit so as to\n<\/p>\n
(i)  render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) reduce  the  number of vehicles authorised to  be\tused
\nunder the permit;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  curtail the area or route covered by the permit in
\nso  far\t as  such permit relates to  the  notified  area  or
\nnotified route.”\n<\/p>\n
The  power  of the R.T.A. under s. 68F(2) is  merely  minis-
\nterial.\t  He has only to carry out the directions  contained
\nin the scheme.\tAs observed by this Court in Abdul Gafoor v.
\nState  of  Mysore<\/a>(1),  that  when  a  scheme  prepared\t and
\npublished   under  s.  68(C)  has  been\t approved   and\t  an
\napplication has been made in pursuance of the scheme and  in
\nthe proper manner as specified
\n(1) [1962] 1 S.C.R. 909
\n 567<\/span>
\nin Chapter IV of the Act, nothing more remains to be decided
\nby  the R.T.A. It has no option to refuse the grant  of\t the
\npermit.\t In that decision this Court further laid down\tthat
\nwhen  deciding\twhat  action to take under  s.\t68F(2),\t the
\nauthority is tied down\t by the terms and conditions of\t the
\napproved scheme and its duty  is   merely  to  do  what\t  is
\nnecessary  to  give  effect to\tthe  provisions\t     of\t the
\nscheme.\n<\/p>\n
In  T.\tN.  Raghunatha\tReddy  v.  Mysore  State   Transport
\nAuthority<\/a>(1)  it  was  urged on\t behalf\t of  the  appellant-
\noperator that  the  expression “existing permit\t holder”  in
\ncl. (d) of that scheme\t should\t be  interpreted as  if\t the
\nscheme is ready on the date when   orders made under s.\t 68F
\ncame  into  effect.  Rejecting that  contention\t this  Court
\nobserved
\n“It  seems  to\tus  that  this\tis  not\t a  correct  way  of
\ninterpreting  the  scheme.  The\t scheme\t as  approved,\t was
\npublished  in  the  Government Gazette under  s.  68D(3)  on
\nJanuary 25, 1968 and on March 1, 1968, the Mysore undertaking
\napplied\t under s. 68F(1) to operate buses    from    January
\n1968 or a later date. As held by this\tCourt\t in    Abdul
\nGafoor v. State of Mysore<\/a> “when a  scheme    prepared\t and
\npublished under s. 68-C has been   approved\t and\t  an
\n\t      application has been made in pursuance of\t the
\n\t      scheme  and in the proper manner as  specified
\n\t      in Ch. IV, nothing more remains to be  decided
\n\t      by the Regional Transport Authority and it has
\n\t      no option\t to refuse the grant of the  permit”
\n\t      and “when taking\t   action  under s.  68-F(1)
\n\t      the  Regional  Transport\tAuthority  does\t not
\n\t      exercise any quasi-judicial function and acts
\n\t      wholly in a ministerial capacity”. It seems to
\n\t      us    that even if the date of publication may
\n\t      not be the appropriate  date-we do not  decide
\n\t      that it is not an\t   appropriate date-at least
\n\t      the date on which the trans-\n<\/p>\n
port undertaking  applies under s. 68F(1) for a permit\tmust
\n\t      be  the  date  with  reference  to  which\t the
\n\t      expression”   existing permit holder”-must  be
\n\t      interpreted. If this is the crucial date, then
\n\t      it  is quite clear that the appellant was\t not
\n\t      an existing permit holder because he did not
\n\t      obtain his counter-signature till July, 1968″.
\nApplying  the  ratio of that decision to the  facts  of\t the
\npresent\t case,\tit is clear that the appellant\twas  not  an
\n“existing  permit holder” at any rate on July 28, 1964\twhen
\nthe  M.S.R.T.C.\t applied  for  a permit\t for  the  route  in
\nquestion. In this view it is  not  necessary  for us  to  go
\ninto the question whether the scheme\t     can be said  to
\nhave been implemented on May 7, 1964 when the\t       same
\nwas  published\tin  the Gazette after the  approval  of\t the
\nGovernment under s. 68D(3).\n<\/p>\n
(1)\t  [1970] 3 S.C.R. 780.\n<\/p>\n
568<\/span><\/p>\n
It  was\t next contended that in view of the  fact  that\t the
\npermit had been issued to the appellant on January 18, 1964,
\nwe must hold that when on July 28, 1964, M.S.R.T.C. applied
\nfor  a permit on the route, the appellant was  an  “existing
\npermit holder”.\t We see no merit in this contention.   Under
\nthe  scheme  the only persons whose permits  are  saved\t are
\nthose  “existing permit holders on the\tinter-state  routes”
\nand not all “existing permit holders”.\tA contention similar
\nto  the one urged before us was considered and\trejected  by
\nthis  Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1415-1443 of 1969  decided
\non  October 17, 1969.  Rejecting the appellant’s  contention
\ntherein this Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
“Mr.  Chagla’s contention is that in view of s. 63 (1 )\t the
\nappellants must be considered as existing permit holders  as
\nthe permits given to them continue to be valid.\t It is\ttrue
\n\t      that in view of s. 6 3 (1) on the basis of the
\n\t      permits  given  to the appellants\t for  inter-
\n\t      state routes, they were entitled to operate in
\n\t      the   routes  concerned  from   the   starting
\n\t      terminus till the route reaches the borders of
\n\t      the  Mysore State.  In other words the  inter-
\n\t      state  permit given to them operated as  intra
\n\t      state  permits for a portion of the  route  to
\n\t      which they were granted till those permits are
\n\t      countersigned   by  the  concerned  State\t  or
\n\t      States.\tBut  that  fact does  not  make\t the
\n\t      holders  of those permits as “existing  permit
\n\t      holders  on  the interstate  routes”.   Before
\n\t      they  can\t be considered\tas  existing  permit
\n\t      holders  of  the concerned  inter-state,\tthey
\n\t      must not only have obtained a permit from\t the
\n\t      concerned\t R.T.O.\t in their home\tState,\tthey
\n\t      must have also obtained the  counter-signature
\n\t      of the concerned States.\tUntil they  obtained
\n\t      counter-signatures  of these, they  cannot  be
\n\t      considered  as existing permit holders of\t the
\n\t      concerned inter-state state routes.”\n<\/p>\n
The  question whether the “Bellery Scheme” provides for\t the
\ntotal exclusion of all operators on the nationalised  routes
\nor  it\tmerely\tprovides for partial exclusion\tis,  in\t our
\nopinion, wholly irrelevant.  All that we have to see is what
\nthe scheme says ?  Whom does it exclude?  It is quite  plain
\nfrom  the language of  the clause referred to  earlier\tthat
\nall operators excepting those mentioned therein are excluded
\nfrom the nationalised routes.  To the general exclusion made
\ntherein, there are two exceptions.  The first one relates to
\ninter-district\toperators and the second to existing  permit
\nholders on inter-state routes.\tThe appellant does not claim
\nto come under the first exception.  For the reasons  already
\nmentioned  his case is not covered by the second  exception.
\nWe  are unable to agree with Mr. A. K. Sen, Counsel for\t the
\nappellant that the decision of this Court in Standard  Motor
\nUnion Pvt.  Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
 569<\/span><\/p>\n
v.   State  of Kerala and ors. (1) is of any  assistance  to
\nthe  appellant.\t In that case this Court was called upon  to
\nconsider  a scheme framed under the Act read with rule 3  of
\nthe  Kerala  Motor Vehicles (State Transport)  Rules,  1960.
\nThe  rule  in question divided the scheme broadly  into\t two
\ncategories  (1) complete exclusion schemes and\t(2)  partial
\nexclusion  schemes.  The question for decision in that\tcase
\nwas  whether  the scheme before this Court  was\t a  complete
\nexclusion  scheme  or  a  partial  exclusion  scheme.\tThat
\nquestion  has  no  relevance for our  present  purpose.\t  As
\nmentioned  earlier  all that we have to see is\twhether\t the
\nappellant  can\tbe  considered as  an  operator\t holding  an
\nexisting  permit on interstate route at the  relevant  time.
\nFor  the reasons already mentioned we do not think  that  he
\nwas one such.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sen is right in his contention that the modification  or
\ncancellation  of  the  permit granted, for  the\t purpose  of
\ngiving effect to an approved scheme must be effected by\t the
\nconcerned  R.T.A. It is true that in this case\tthe  R.T’.A.
\nwas  not  approached  to cancel the permit  granted  to\t the
\nappellant.   But  even after the M.S.R.T.C.  applied  for  a
\npermit for the route in question, R.T.A. renewed the  permit
\ngranted to the appellant.  It was impermissible for it to do
\nso.   The  appellant  is right in his  contention  that\t the
\nvalidity  of the renewal was not before the  Mysore  Revenue
\nAppellate  Tribunal.   The  appeal  that  was  before\tthat
\nTribunal  was  one challenging the  original  grant.   Hence
\ntechnically  Mr.  Sen is right in his  contention  that\t the
\nTribunal could not have done what the R.T.A. was required to
\ndo.  But  as mentioned earlier the functions of\t the  R.T.A.
\nunder s. 68F are merely ministerial.  It was bound to  carry
\nout  the  directions given in the scheme.   But\t the  R.T.A.
\nevidently  did\tnot take action under s.  68F(2),  initially
\nbecause of the pendency of the appeals before the  appellate
\nauthorities and thereafter he could not take action  because
\nof  the\t stay  order issued by the  High  Court\t during\t the
\npendency  of the writ petition and by this Court  after\t the
\nappeal was filed.  We see no purpose in allowing this appeal
\non a purely technical ground as that course cannot give\t any
\nrelief to the appellant.  The R.T.A. is bound to cancel\t his
\npen-nit in pursuance of the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
For  the reasons mentioned above this appeal fails  and\t the
\nsame is dismissed.  But in the circumstances of this case we
\nmake no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed
\n(1) [1969] 1 S.C.R. 464.\n<\/p>\n
2-L1 52SupCI\/73
\n570<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And … on 4 May, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1674, 1973 SCR (1) 562 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: D. M. THIPPESWAMY Vs. RESPONDENT: THE MYSORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/05\/1972 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nD. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And ... on 4 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And ... on 4 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-03T05:00:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And … on 4 May, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-03T05:00:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972\"},\"wordCount\":2697,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972\",\"name\":\"D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And ... on 4 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-03T05:00:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And … on 4 May, 1972\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And ... on 4 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And ... on 4 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-03T05:00:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And … on 4 May, 1972","datePublished":"1972-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-03T05:00:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972"},"wordCount":2697,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972","name":"D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And ... on 4 May, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-03T05:00:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-thippeswamy-vs-the-mysore-appellate-tribunal-and-on-4-may-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D. M. Thippeswamy vs The Mysore Appellate Tribunal And … on 4 May, 1972"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203891","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}