Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
REGOPMA; TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/09/1998
BENCH:
A.S.ANAND, B.N.KIRPAL
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
C.A.No.4637 of 1998 ( @ SLP(C) No. 13937/92)
Levea granted.
The short question requiring our consideration is :
whether the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter the ’Corporation’) is required to renew the
permits obtained by it to ply its vehicles on a notified
route during the subsistence of a scheme ? The High Court
has answered the question in the affirmative.
In short, the facts leading to the filing of the
appeal are that the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, Gorakhpur requested the Regional
Transport Authorities for issuance of permits fro routes
covered by a scheme reserved for exclusive operation by the
Corporation. In response to the Regional Manager’s letter,
he was informed that according to the provisions of Section
58(2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter the
’Act’) permits could be issued for a maximum period of three
years and were thereafter required to be renewed. The
appellants were informed that on payment of permit fee as
well as the prescribed fee under Rule 55 of the U.P. Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the
’Rules’) the permit issued to the Corporation should be got
renewed. The appellants questioned the directions issued by
the authorities by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court.
The High Court vide its judgment dated 25.1.1991 allowed the
Writ Petition partially. it was held that the Corporation
was required to apply for renewal of the permit under
section 68-F(1)(E) of the Act for the period prescribed
under sub-section 58(2)(a) if the Act read with the relevant
rules and on making such an application, permit issued to
the Corporation would be renewed. The High Court did notice
that Rule 10(4) of the Rules lays down that a permit issued
to the Corporation is to remain valid till the scheme
remains in force but came to the conclusion that such a Rule
could not override or be inconsistent with the provisions of
section 58(2)(a) of the Act and, therefore, held that
notwithstanding Rule 10(4) of the Rules, renewal of the
permit was essential to make it valid for the renewed period
to ply the vehicles by the Corporation. This appeal by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
special leave calls in question that judgment and order of
the High Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and examined the record.
Chapter IV of the Act deals with control of
transport vehicles including the provisions for issuance of
permits and the manner of renewal of the same. This Chapter,
however, is general in nature and deals with non-notified
routes. Chapter IV-A of the Act on the other hand
exclusively contains special provisions relating to the
State Transport Undertakings and concerns itself with
notified routes. This chapter was inserted by Act 100 of
1956 w.e.f. 16.2.1967.
Section 68-B of the Act which occurs in Chapter IV-A
reads.:
"68-B Chapter IV-A to override Chapter IV and
other laws - The provisions of this Chapter and
the rules and orders made thereunder shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or
any other law for the time being in force or in
any instrument having effect by virtue of any
such law."
A bare reading of section 68-B (supra), thus, shows that
Chapter III A of the Act has an overriding effect
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force including Chapter IV of the Act to the
extent of anything being inconsistent with what is contained
in Chapter IV A.
Section 68-F (I-E) (Chapter IV-A) relates to
issuance of permits to the State Transport Undertakings. it
reads :
"68-F Issue of permits to State Transport
undertakings (1) Where, in pursuance of an
approved scheme, any State transport undertaking
applies (in such transport undertaking applies
(in such manner as may be prescribed by the State
Government in this behalf for a stage carriage
permit or a public carrier’s permit or a contract
carriage permit in respect of a notified area or
notified route, the [State Transport Authority in
any case where the said area or route lies in
more than one region and the regional Transport
Authority in any other case] shall issue such
permit to the State transport undertaking,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in Chapter IV.
(1-E) Where a State transport undertaking applies
for renewal of a permit within the period
specified in sub section (2A) of Section 58, the
State Transport Authority or, as the case may be
the regional Transport Authority, shall, renew
such permit, notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in Chapter IV".
Section 68(1) confers Rule making powers on the
State Government. Sub-clause (cc) of clause (2) thereof
enables the State Government to frame Rules regarding the
manner in which applications under sub-section (1) of
Section 68 F are to be made. The U.P. State Road Transport
Services (Development) Rules, 1974 have been framed under
the aforesaid Rule making power. Rule 10 thereof deals with
the subject. It provides :
"Rule 10. Application for permit for services of
stage carriage (Section 68-1(2)(cc)
1.An application for stage carriage permit and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
public carrier’s permit of contract carriage
permit in respect of the notified routes/areas in
pursuance of the approved scheme shall be made on
behalf of the State Transport Underrating in Form
III.
2. Upon receipt of an application under
sub-rule (1) the State Transport Authority as the
case may be issued a permit to the State
transport Undertaking for the notified route or
notified area accordingly.
3. Every permit issued as aforesaid shall in 2
parts namely, Para ’A’ and Part ’B’ and be in
From ’IV’.
4. The permit issued as aforesaid shall remain
valid till the scheme remains in force.
5. There shall be paid a fee of Rs. 5/- only
in respect of an application for a permit made
before the Regional Transport Authority and a fee
of Rs. 10/- only in respect of such application
made before the State Transport Authority.
6. Duplicate permit to any part of the permit
shall be issued by the State Transport Authority
or Regional Transport Authority concerned as the
case may be, on a payment of Rs. 5/- for Part ’A’
and mutilated or lost."
A combined reading of Section 68-B, 68-F (I-E) and
Rule 10 (supra) shows that insofar as notified routes are
concerned, for which the Corporation has an exclusive right
to ply their vehicles under the scheme framed under the Act,
the duration of the permit obtained by the Corporation for
playing those vehicles is co-terminus with the life of the
scheme. Sub-clause (4) of Rule 10 unmistakably says "the
permit issued as aforesaid shall remain valid till the
scheme remains in force".
The Division Bench of the High Court, it appears
overlooked the distinction between the provisions of
Chapters IV and IVA of the Act. So far as Chapter IV is
concerned, as already noticed, it deals with essentially
speaking, non-notified routes. Section 58(2)(a) of the Act
which occurs in Chapter IV applies only to non-notified
routes and not to the notified routes, even when the
Corporation may also be playing their vehicles on the
non-notified routes. However, so far as notified routes are
concerned, Chapter IVA of the Act which contains special
provisions governs the field and being "social" it over
rides the "general provisions" of Chapter IV. Thus the
grant of permit to the Corporation for playing its vehicle
on notified routes remains valid till the scheme remains in
force. There is thus no need for renewal of the existing
permit during the period when the scheme is in force. The
Corporation does not need to make any fresh application for
renewal of the permit after 3 years or 5 years so long as
the scheme is in force. The necessity to seek renewal of a
permit after the expiry of the period prescribed in the
permit is only relevant where the permit is granted even to
the Corporation under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act
and not under Chapter IV A of the Act. The view of the
authorities to the contrary which has been upheld by the
Division bench of the High Court is thus clearly erroneous
and cannot be sustained.
Thus, for what has been said above, the impugned
judgment and order dated 25.1.1991 made in Writh Petition
No.1006/1988 is hereby set aside. The effect of this order
would be that the Writ Petition would stand allowed and the
permit obtained by the Corporation to ply the vehicles on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
the notified routes will continue to remain valid till the
scheme is in force and would not require any renewal during
the subsistence of the scheme. No costs.
C.A. No. ....... of 1998 (@ SLP(C) No. 12732 of 1992)
In this appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 12732/95,
which calls in question the judgment and order of the High
Court dated 12.8.1992 made in Writ Petition No. 10837 of
1992, the Division Bench of the High Court followed its
earlier judgment in U.P. State Road transport Corporation
vs. The Regional Transport Authority Gorakhpur. For the
reasons stated by us in the appeal filed by the U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation [C.A. No. ........ of 1998(@
SLP(C) No. 13937 of 1992], this appeal also succeeds and is
allowed on the same terms as that appeal.