AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Veeraswami, J.—The first Respondent on the date he applied for the route permit was a dealer in petrol. The question, that was raised before the Tribunal, was whether in view of Section 4(5) of the Madras Sale of Motor Spirit Taxation Act (VI of 1939), his application was competent or forbidden by law. The Tribunal held that Section 4(5) did not affect the application. It is common ground that even prior to the date of the hearing by the Regional Transport Authority, the 1st Respondent had renounced his interest as petrol dealer.
Section 4(5) states:
No person including a company or firm registered as an importer, a wholesale dealer or a retail dealer, shall carry on the business of public transport requiring the use of motor spirit.
It is clear from the section that what it prohibits is that a petrol dealer shall not engage himself in the business of public transport requiring the use of motor spirit. Unless and until the 1st Respondent becomes an operator and he is an operator and he is a dealer in petrol at the same time, the inhibition under the statutory provision is not attached. It does not follow therefore, that merely because on the date of the application by the 1st Respondent, he was dealing in motor spirit, he was disqualified or his application was forbidden by law. If before actually entering into the transport business, an Applicant who is granted a permit, renounces his interest in motor spirit business and ceases to be a motor spirit dealer, he is clearly out of the mischief of the section. That is the view the Tribunal took and, I think, quite rightly.
Petition is dismissed but with no costs.