Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
PUNJAB SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE,MOUDHAPARA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,RAIPUR AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
15/10/1965
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)
WANCHOO, K.N.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
CITATION:
1966 AIR 1318 1966 SCR (2) 221
CITATOR INFO :
R 1978 SC 215 (34)
R 1992 SC 320 (47)
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), s. 63 and Central Provinces
and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, rr. 62 and, 63-Scope
of.
HEADNOTE:
The Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, granted the
appellant renewal of the stage carriage permit for an inter-
regional route, The appellant, thereafter, applied to the
Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, for renewal of the
grant of counter-signature on the renewed permit, and it was
granted. In an application under Art. 226 by the 2nd
respondent, the High Court quashed the order of the Regional
Transport Authority, Raipur, on the ground that the
appellant’s application for renewel of the counter-signature
was barred by time.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : On a proper construction of the Central Provinces and
Berar Motor Vehicles Rules made by the State Government in
regard to the grant of permits and counter-signatures of
inter-regional permits, the Regional Transport Authority,
Raipur, was not competent to renew the counter-signature on
the permit for the inter-regional route granted by the
Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, and the permit was
valid only so far as it related to the route within the
limits of Bilaspur region, (225 H]
Even though by s. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the
power to counter-sign the permit is entrusted to the
Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the
remaining part of the route is situate, the effect of r. 63
is that the power to counter-sign the permit is vested in
the Authority which grants the renewal of the permit. In
the context and the language of the rule the word "may" in
the rule, though permissive in form, is obligatory. If the
Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, had power to renew
the counter-signature on the permit under the rule,, it must
be held that the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, had
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
no such power under r. 62, because, the latter rule As
expressly made subject to the provisions of r. 63, and the
power granted to the Regional Transport Authority under r.
62 is taken away by the provisions of r. 63. [227 C-G]
M/s. Bundelkhand Motors Transport Company v. Beharilal,
[1966] 1 S.C.R. 485, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1965.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 13, 1964
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 373
of 1964.
M. S. Gupta, for the appellant.
222
B. R. L. Iyengar, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. On August 7, 1963 the Regional Transport
Authority, Bilaspur granted to the Punjab Sikh Regular Motor
Service, (hereinafter called the appellant), renewal of a
stage carriage permit for an inter-regional route-Saraipalli
to Sarangarh-in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The permit was
valid upto August 5, 1963 and by the order of renewal dated
August 7, 1963 the permit was renewed for a period of three
years. On September 13, 1963 the appellant applied to the
Regional Transport Authority, Raipur for renewal of the
grant of countersignature on the renewed permit. Respondent
no. 2 objected to the renewal of the grant of counter-
signature on the ground that the application of the
appellant dated September 13, 1963 was barred by time. The
Regional Transport Authority, Raipur held that the
application for renewal of the grant of countersignature was
not made within the time prescribed by rule 62 of the
Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules but it took
the view that the application for renewal had been filed
within six weeks of the date of the passing of the order of
renewal of the permit by the Regional Transport Authority,
Bilaspur and therefore the application for the renewal of
the grant of countersignature could not be rejected on the
ground that it was time barred. The Regional Transport
Authority, Raipur accordingly granted the renewal of the
counter-signature on the permit by its order dated February
24, 1964. Respondent no. 2 thereafter applied to the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution
of India for a writ quashing the order dated February 24,
1964 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur.
The High Court took the view that an application for renewal
of the grant of counter-signature must be made within the
period prescribed by s. 58 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and
the appellant having failed to apply within that period, the
application of the appellant for renewal of the counter-
signature on the permit was barred and the Regional
Transport Authority, Raipur had no jurisdiction to
countersign the permit renewed by the Regional Transport
Authority, Bilaspur. The High Court accordingly quashed the
order dated February 24, 1964 passed by the Regional
Transport Authority, Raipur. This appeal is brought by the
appellant with a certificate granted by the High Court
tinder Art. 1 33 (1) (c) of the Constitution.
It is advisable at this stage to refer to the material
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939) which
have a bearing
22 3
on the validity of the order of the Regional Transport
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
Authority, Raipur dated February 24, 1964. Section 45 of
the Motor Vehicles Act provides that every application for a
permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of
the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or
vehicles. By the proviso to S. 45 it is enacted that where
it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more
regions lying within the same State, the application shall
be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in
which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies.
Section 47 sets out the procedure of the Regional Transport
Authority in considering applications for stage carriage
permits and prescribes the matters which may be taken into
account by that officer ingraining or rejecting the
applications for stage carriage permits.Section 48
provides that subject to the provision of S. 47,a Regional
Transport Authority may, on an application made to it, grant
a stage carriage permit, in accordance with the application
or with such modifications as it deems fit, valid for a
specified route or routes or a specified area. Section 57
prescribes the procedure in " applying for and granting
permits". It is provided by sub-s. (2) of s. 57 that an
application for a stage carriage permit or a public
carrier’s permit shall be made not less than six weeks
before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall
take effect, or, if the Regional Transport Authority
appoints a date for the receipt of such applications, on
such date. Section 58(1) provides that a stage carriage
permit or a contract carriage permit other than a temporary
permit shall be effective without renewal for such period
not less than three years and more than five years, as the
Regional Transport Authority may specify in the permit.
Sub-section (2) enacts that a permit may be renewed on an
application made and disposed of as if it were an
application for a permit, provided that the application for
the renewal of a permit shall be made (a) in the case of a
stage carriage permit or a public carrier’s permit, not less
than sixty days before the date of its expiry, and (b) in
any other case, not less than thirty days before the date
of, its expiry. By sub-s. (3) the Authority is,
notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to
sub-s. (2), authorised to entertain an application for the
renewal of a permit after the last date specified in the
said proviso, if the application is made not more than
fifteen days after the said last date. Section 63 deals
with inter-regional and inter-state permits. The material
parts of that section are
"(1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a
permit granted by the Regional Transport
Authority
224
of any one region, shall not be valid in any
other region, unless the permit has been
countersigned, by the Regional Transport
Authority of that other region, and a permit
granted in any one State shall not be valid in
any other State unless countersigned by the
State Transport Authority of that other State
or by the Regional Transport Authority
concerned :
Provided..........................
(2) A Regional Transport Authority when
countersigning the permit may attach to the
permit any condition which it might have
imposed if it had granted the permit and may
likewise vary any condition attached to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
permit by the authority, by which the permit
was granted.
(3) The provisions of this Chapter relating
to the grant, revocation and suspension of
permits shall apply to the grant, revocation
and suspension of countersignatures of permits
:
Provided............................
Section 68(1) confers authority upon the State Government to
make rules for the purpose of carying into effect the
provisions of Ch. IV of the Act.
A stage carriage permit granted by a Regional Transport
Authority therefore remains effective without renewal for a
period of not less than three years and not more than five
years as the authority may specify in the permit. A person
desiring to obtain renewal of the permit must, in the case
of a stage carriage permit, make an application not less
than sixty days before the date of its expiry, and the
Authority has to deal with the application for the renewal
as if it were an application for a permit. The procedure
for obtaining renewal is assimilated to the procedure
prescribed for an application for a first permit, but in
order that there is no interruption in the transport service
the Legislature has provided that the application for
renewal shall be made not less than sixty days before the
date of its expiry, it being assumed that the authority
would be able, in the interval, to publish the application,
and to hear objections to the grant of renewal. Except as
may be otherwise prescribed, an interregional permit by a
Regional Transport Authority in any region. is not valid
unless the permit is countersigned by the Regional Transport
Authority of that other region. The provisions of Ch. IV
relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits
225
apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of
countersignatures of permits.
The High Court has held, in the present case, that an appli-
cation for renewal of counter-signature has also to be made
not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry and
if no such application is made, the Regional Transport
Authority has no power to countersign the permit, and upon
that ground the High Court has quashed the order of the
Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated February 24, 1964
granting countersignature of the permit. It was argued on
behalf of the appellant that the period of limitation
prescribed by s. 58 of the Motor Vehicle,-, Act cannot be
applied to an application for countersignature of a renewed
permit. It was submitted that the question of counter-
signature cannot arise unless and until the permit was first
renewed and therefore it was erroneous to say that an
application for countersignature should be made even before
the permit was renewed and within the time prescribed by s.
58. The contrary view was put forward on behalf of
respondent no. 2. It was contended that in the case of an
inter-regional route, the countersignature of the Regional
Transport Authority concerned was essential for the validity
and confirmation of the grant made by the Regional Transport
Authority having jurisdiction to grant a permit for the
inter-regional route. It was pointed out that under s. 63
(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act the provisions of Ch. IV
relating to grant, revocation and suspension of permits
apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of
countersignatures of permits and therefore the provisions of
ss. 57 and 58 about the making of an application for the
grant of a permit, the time within which it must be made and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
the procedure that must be followed, apply equally in the
matter of the grant of countersignatures and that as s. 58
laid down that an application for renewal of a permit must
be made, in the case of a stage carriage permit, not less
than sixty days before the date of its expiry, it
necessarily followed that an application for
countersignature of the renewed permit for inter-regional
route had to be made to the Regional Transport Authority
concerned within sixty days before the date of the expiry of
the permit.
We do not think it is necessary to express any opinion on
the contentions advanced by the parties on this aspect of
the case, for we are of the view that on a proper
construction of the rules made by the State Government in
regard to the grant of permits and countersignatures of
inter-regional permits the Regional Transport Authority,
Raipur was not competent to renew
226
the countersignature on the permit for tile interregional
route granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur
in the present case. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the
Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 were
made by the appropriate authority and it is the admitted
position that these rules were at the material time in
operation in the two regions-Bilaspur and Raipur in the
State of Madhya Pradesh with which we are concerned. By r.
61 it is provided :
"(a) Application for the renewal of a permit
shall be made, in writing to the Regional
Transport Authority by which the permit was
issued not less than two months, in the case
of a stage carriage permit or a public
carrier’s permit, and not less than one month
in other cases, before the expiry of the
permit, and shall be accompanied by Part A of
the permit. The application shall state the
period for which the renewal is desired and
shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed in
rule 55.
(b) The Regional Transport Authority
renewing a permit shall call upon the holder
to produce part B or Parts A, B thereof, as
the case may be, and shall endorse Parts A and
B accordingly and shall return them to the
holder."
By r. 62 cl. (a) it is provided
"Subject to the provisions of r. 63,
application for the renewal of a
countersignature on a permit shall be made to
the Regional Transport Authority concerned and
within the appropriate periods prescribed by
Rule 61 and shall, subject to the provisions
of sub-rule (b), be accompanied by Part A of
the permit. The application shall set forth
the period for which the renewal of the
countersignature is required".
By r. 63 cl. (a) it is provided :
"The authority by which a permit is renewed
may, unless any authority by which the permit
has been countersigned (with effect not
terminating before the date of expiry of the
permit) has by general or special order
otherwise directed, likewise renew any
countersignature of the permit (by endorsement
of the permit in the manner set forth in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
appropriate form) and shall, in such case,
intimate the renewal to such authority".
227
Rule 61 substantially incorporates the provisions of sub-s.
(2) of s. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the proviso
thereto, and makes certain incidental provisions. Clause
(a) of r. 62 provides that the application for renewal of
countersignature of a permit shall be made to the Regional
Transport Authority concerned and within the appropriate
period prescribed by r. 61 but the provisions of r. 62(a)
are subject to the provisions of r. 63(a) which confers
power upon the Authority which grants renewal of inter-
regional permit under the first proviso to s. 45 to
countersign the permit so as to make it valid for the other
region covered by the route. Therefore, even though by S.
63 the power to countersign the pen-nit is entrusted to the
Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the
remaining part of the route is situate, the effect of r. 63
is that the power to countersign the permit is vested in the
Authority which grants the renewal of the permit. The
Legislature has by providing in the opening part of sub-s.
(1) of s. 63 "except as may be otherwise prescribed" made
the provision subject to the rules framed by the State
Government under S. 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
provisions of r. 63, therefore, must supersede the direction
contained in s. 63(1) of the statute and the Regional
Transport Authority, Bilaspur was competent in the present
case to grant countersignature of the pen-nit even in so far
as it related to the Raipur region. On behalf of the
appellant attention was drawn to the expression "may" in r.
63. But in the context and the language of the rule the
word "may" though permissive in form, must be held to be
obligatory. Under r. 63 the power to grant renewal of the
countersignature on the permit in the present case is
conferred on the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur.
The exercise of such power of renewal depends not upon the
discretion of the authority but upon the proof of the
particular case out of which such power arises. "Enabling
words are construed as compulsory whenever the object of
the, power is to effectuate a legal right" (See Julius v.
Bishop of Oxford) (1). If the Regional Transport Authority,
Bilaspur had power to renew the countersignature on the
permit under r. 63, it must be held that the Regional
Transport Authority, Raipur had no such power under r. 62
because the latter rule is expressly made subject to the
provisions of rule 63, and the power granted to the Regional
Transport Authority under S. 62 is taken away by the
provisions of r. 63. It follows, therefore, that the
Regional Transport Authority, Raipur was not competent to
renew the countersignature on the permit in the present case
and the Regional Transport Autho-
(1) 5 A.C. 214, 244.
228
rity, Bilaspur was alone competent to renew the
countersignature of the permit. We accordingly hold that
the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated
February 24, 1964 granting countersignature of the permit
was illegal and ultra vires and was rightly quashed by the
High Court by its order dated November 13, 1964.
We, therefore, confirm- the order of the High Court, but for
different reasons. We, however, desire to make it clear
that our order does not affect the validity of the permit
granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport
Authority, Bilaspur in so far as it relates to the route
within the limits of Bilaspur region. That is the ratio of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
the decision of this Court in M/s. Bundelkhand Motor
Transport Company, Nowgaon v. Behari Lal Chaurasia and
anr.(1) in which it was pointed out that inter-regional
permit when granted is valid for the region over which the
authority granting the permit has jurisdiction even though
it is not countersigned by the proper Regional Transport
Authority with regard to the portion of the route outside
that region.
We accordingly dismiss this appeal. There will be no order
as to costs. We desire to express our thanks to Mr. Iyengar
who acted as amicus curiae in this case.
Appeal dismissed.
(1) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 485.
229