Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
D. PAPIAH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/12/1975
BENCH:
GUPTA, A.C.
BENCH:
GUPTA, A.C.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
CITATION:
1976 AIR 1731 1976 SCR (3) 28
1976 SCC (1) 953
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section 45(1)-Jurisdiction to
grant inter regional permits, when the proposed route or
area falls in two or more regions Lying within the same
State vests either with the Regional Transport Authority of
the region in which the major portion of the proposed route
or area lies, or with the Regional Transport Authority of
the region in which it is proposed to t keep the vehicle or
vehicles, in case the portion of the proposed route or area
in each of the regions is approximately equal-Meaning of the
term "area" in the first proviso to s. 45(1)-Whether
"motorable tract in the region" or geo graphical area".
HEADNOTE:
Section 45(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a
general provision regulating applications for inter-regional
route-permits within a State requires an application to be
made to the appropriate Regional Transport Authority
mentioned in the proviso thereto namely, either to the
Regional Transport Authority of tho region in which the
major portion of the proposed route or area lies or to the
Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is
proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles in case the portion
of the proposed route or area in each of the regions are
approximately equal.
The appellant applied for a contract carriage permit
that would be valid throughout the State of Karnataka, which
meant that he proposed to use his vehicle in all the
nineteen regions, to the Regional Transport Authority,
Mandya, who granted him on 8-2-1972 a contract carriage
permit valid for the entire State of Karnataka. The permit
was granted as Mandya region has more motorable roads than
any other district in the State. On appeal preferred by the
State Road Transport Corporation, taking the view that
geographically Mandya region was smaller in area and, as
such, the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority,
Mandya was ousted, the permit granted to the appellant was
cancelled by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by its
Order dated 19-8-1972, resulting in a writ Proceedings
before the Karnataka High Court which was dismissed.
On appeal by Special Leave, the Court,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
^
HELD: (1) The word "route" which has been used in
association with "area specifically notified by the State
Government". However, the terms and "a line of travel which
specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor
vehicle between one terminus and another". Section 2(1)
defines "area" as "area specifically notified by the State
Government". However, the terms and expressions defined in
s. 2 will apply only if there is nothing repugnant in the
subject or context. Tho first proviso to s. 45(1) speaks of
the route or area proposed in an application for a permit
and, as such, there can be no question of the State
Government specifying the area. The definition of "area" in
section 2(1) has therefore no relevance in this context.
[31B-D]
(2) S. 45 uses both the words "route" and "area"
whichever is applicable in a given case. A route as defined
is a line of travel between two termini on a highway, but
the idea of a route as a notional line that the definition
suggests has not been consistently maintained in the Act.
[31D-E]
(3) A route may mean not only the notional line of
travel between one terminus and another, but also the area
of the route over which the motor vehicles ply, yet the two
terms are not interchangeable. "A route is an area plus some
thing more." This "something" is the notional line of travel
between the two termini which distinguishes a route from an
area simpliciter. The first proviso to s. 45(1) speaks of
"route or area" apparently making a distinction between
29
them to cover applications relatable to either. A contract
carriage does not ply along a fixed "route or routes" but
over an "area" which is why an application for a contract
carriage permit has to contain a statement as to the pro
posed area. [31G-H]
Dosa Satyanarayanamurty etc. v. The Andhra Pradesh
State Road Transport Corpn., [1961] 1 S.C.R. 642 (644). C.
P. C. Motor Service, Mysore v. The State of Mysore,
[1962]Supp. (1) S.C.R. 717 (725). C. P. Sikh Regular Motor
Service etc. v. The State of Maharashtra, [1975] (2) S.C.R.
10, followed.
(4)The word "area" in the first proviso to s. 45(1) of
the Act means the area of motorable roads within the
territorial jurisdiction of a regional transport authority.
Except that the territorial jurisdiction of the regional
transport authority is fixed in terms of "geographical area
-"district-wise in the State of Karnataka- "area" in that
wider sense is irrelevant to the purpose of the Act.
[32 B, F]
(5) The jurisdiction of a regional transport authority
to grant an inter regional permit depends on the existing
areas of motorable roads when an application for a permit is
made. [32 G]
[On the question of the reasonableness of a provision
which requires an application for an inter-regional permit
to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region
where the major portion of the proposed route or area lies,
the Court observed that this was a matter of policy but
added that the policy has not been stated very clearly, and
that instead of leaving the law in such a "slippery state,"
the State should clarify it by appropriate legislation so
that the law may be clear and easily ascertainable by the
concerned section of the public.]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1153 of
1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order
dated the 29th November 1974 of the Mysore High Court at
Bangalore Writ Petition No. 117 of 1973.
S. V. Gupte, K. R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.
Shyamla Pappu (Mrs.) for Respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Gupta, J.-on the application of the appellant the
Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, granted him. a
contract carriage permit on February 8, 1972, valid for the
entire State of Karnataka. The grant was cancelled by the
Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal by its order
dated August 19, 1972 on appeal preferred by the third
respondent, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The
appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of
Karnataka at Ban galore challenging the order of the
Appellate Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the petition
by its order dated November 29, 1-974 agreeing with the
Appellate Tribunal that the Regional Transport Authority,
Mandya, had no jurisdiction to grant permits valid
throughout the State of Karnataka in view of the first
proviso to sub-section (1) of section 45 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The
correctness of that decision is questioned by the appellant
in this appeal by special leave.
Section 45(1) with its first proviso which is the only
part of the section relevant for the present purpose is in
these terms:
General provision as to applications for permits.
30
"45 (1) 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:
Provided that if 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, and
in case the portion of the proposed route or area in
each of the regions is approximately equal, to the
Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it
is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles :"
As its marginal note indicates, section contains a general
provision regulating applications for permits. The proviso,
quoted above, lays down that where the applicant for a
permit proposes to use his vehicle in two or more regions in
the same State, the application must be made to the
Regional Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the
major portion of the proposed route or area lies. The
appellant had asked for a contract carriage permit that
would be valid throughout the State of Karnataka which meant
that he proposed to use his vehicle in all the different
regions lying in the State. The second proviso to section
44(1) of the Act lays down that the area specified as the
region of a Regional Transport Authority shall not be less
than an entire district, or the whole area of a Presidency
town. In the State of Karnataka there are 19 Regional
Transport Authorities, one for each district in the State.
In terms of the first proviso to section 45 (1), an
application for an inter-regional permit that the appellant
was asking for had to be made to the Regional Transport
Authority of the region that included the major portion of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
the proposed area. The question debated before the appellate
tribunal and the High Court was whether the area lying
within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority,
Mandya, was larger than the area within the region of any
other Regional Transport Authority in the State, and in that
context the meaning of the term ’area’ in the first proviso
to section 45 (1) arose for consideration. According to the
applicant for the permit, ’area’ in section 45 meant the
extent of motorable tract in the region, and the Regional
Transport Authority, Mandya, agreeing with this
interpretation of the word ’area’ found that the ’Mandya
Region has more motorable roads than any other district in
the State". The appellate tribunal and the High Court both
refused to accept this meaning of ’area’ which they held to
mean plain geographical area and as the Regional Transport
Authority, Mandya, was admittedly not the largest district
in that State, the High Court dismissed the writ petition
and affirmed the decision of the appellate tribunal that the
grant of permit was without jurisdiction.
Before proceeding to consider the merits of the rival
contentions as to the meaning of the word ’area’ in the
first proviso to section 45(1), it would be helpful to refer
to certain other provisions of the Act which seem to be
relevant in this context. The appellant had asked for a
contract carriage permit. Section 2(3) defies a contract
carriage as a motor vehicle which carries passengers for
hire or reward under a contract for the use of the vehicles
as a whole either on a time basis or
31
from one point to another, and in both cases without
stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route
passengers not included in the contract. A motor vehicle is
defined in section 2(18) as a mechanically propelled vehicle
’adapted for use upon roads’. Section 49 lays down the
particulars that an application for a contract carriage
permit shall contain, and the ’area’ for which the permit is
required is one of the matters that the application must
state. The word route which has been used in association
with ’area’ in section 45(1) is defined by section 2(28A) as
"a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be
traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and
another." Section 2(1) defines ’area’ as follows:- -
" "area", in relation to any provision of this
Act, means such area as the State Government may,
having regard to the requirements of that provision,
specify by notification in the official Gazette;"
The terms and expressions defined in section 2 will
apply only if there is nothing repugnant in the subject or
context as the opening words of the section indicate. The
first proviso to section 45 (1) speaks of the route or area
proposed in an application for a permit and, as such, there
can be no question here of the State Government specifying
the area. Clearly, the definition of area in section 2(1)
has no relevance in this context. The question therefore
remains to be answered, whether ’area‘ in section 45(1) has
been used in the wider sense of geographical area, or it
means only the area of motorable roads ? The section uses
both the words, ’route’ and ’area’, whichever is applicable
in a given case. A route as defined is a line of travel
between two termini on a highway, but the idea of a route as
a notional line that the definition suggests has not been
consistently maintained in the Act. In Dosa
Satyanarayanamurty etc. v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corpn. (1) this Court observed: "There is no
inherent in consistency between an "area" and a "route". The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
proposed route is also an area limited to the route
proposed." A similar observation was made in C.P.C. Motor
Service, Mysore v. The State of Mysore(2) that in the scheme
of the Act, by the word "route" is meant "not only the
notional line but also the actual road over which the
omnibuses run". Of course, it would not be correct to say
that the Act recognizes no distinction between ’route’ and
’area’. A route may mean not only the notional line of
travel between one terminus and another, but also the area
of the road over which the motor vehicles ply, yet the two
terms are not interchangeable; as pointed out in C.P. Sikh
Regular Motor Service etc. v. The State of Maharashtra,(3)
"a route is an area plus something more". This "something"
is the notional line of travel between two termini which
distinguishes a route ‘- from an area simpliciter. The first
proviso to section 45(1) speaks of "route or area"
apparently making a distinction between them to cover
applications relatable to either. A contract carriage does
not ply along a fixed route or routes but over an area,
which is why an application for a contract carriage permit
has to contain a statement as to the proposed area.
(1) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 642 (644). (2) [1962 Supp. (1)
S.C.R. 717 (725).
(3) [1975] 2 S.C.R. 10.
32
All the decisions to which we have referred above have
taken the view that by area is meant the road, the physical
tract, over which the motor vehicles ply without reference
to any notional line of travel. Of course, this meaning was
given to the word ’area’ in the context of the provisions of
the Act considered in these cases, in none of which section
45 came up for consideration. We do not however find any
reason to think that ’area’ in section 45 ( 1 ) has a
different connotation. Except that the territorial
jurisdiction of the regional transport authorities is fixed
in terms of geographical area-districtwise in the State of
Karnataka-’area’ in that wider sense is irrelevant to the
purposes of the Act. Counsel for the respondent, Mysore
State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore, built an
argument on the provisions of section 12 of the Act that the
meaning of ’area’ is not restricted only to the area of
motorable roads in a region. Section 42 prohibits the use of
a transport vehicle in any public place except in accordance
with the conditions of a valid permit. A transport vehicle
includes a motor vehicle used for the carriage of passengers
[section 2(33) and section 2(25). Public place has been
defined by section 2(24) of the Act as "road, street, way or
other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the
public have a right of access, and includes any place or
stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a
stage carriage". lt was argued that a contract carriage
which does not ply on a fixed route could be used in any
public place which need not necessarily be a road; this,
according to counsel, indicated that the word area occurring
in section 45(1) meant geographical area and not motorable
roads only. We do not find it possible to accept this
contention. Assuming that a contract carriage could be used
in places which are not really roads, the fact remains that
a contract carriage being a motor vehicle is intended for
use upon roads, and any casual use of it in places other
than roads is not decisive on the interpretation of the word
area. The prohibition against the use of transport vehicles
in public places which are not roads serves to repel a
possible claim that for using a motor vehicle in places
which cannot be called roads no permit was necessary. We
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
hold therefore that the word area in the first proviso to
section 45(1) of the Act means the area of motorable roads
within the territorial jurisdiction of a regional transport
authority. The Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, held
that it had within its jurisdiction the largest area of
motorable roads in the State of Karnataka, and this finding
has not been disturbed by the appellate tribunal. The
appellate tribunal thought that the expression "motorable
roads" was vague as the area comprising of motorable roads
would be changing from time to time", but the jurisdiction
of a regional transport authority to grant an inter-regional
permit depends on the existing area of motorable roads when
an application for a permit is made.
In the course of arguments before us doubts were
expressed on the reasonableness of a provision which
requires an application for an inter-regional permit to be
made to the regional transport authority of the region in
which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies
when section 63 of the Act provides elaborate checks and
lays
33
down conditions for the validation of permits for use
outside the region in which it has been granted. It was
submitted that in view of the provisions of section 63 there
was no point in insisting on the application being made to
the Regional Transport Authority of any particular region.
We see the logic of this submission, but this is a matter of
policy on which the court has no say. However, the policy
itself does not appear to have been stated very clearly. On
the provisions as they are it is difficult to say that the
construction put forward on behalf of the third respondent
is altogether implausible. It is also true that there can be
practical difficulties, whichever interpretation was
adopted. This being the position we should have thought that
instead of leaving the law in such a slippery state, the
State should clarify it by appropriate legislation so that
the law may be clear and easily ascertainable by the
concerned section of the public.
The appeal is allowed and the impugned order including
the order of the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal
is set aside. We make it clear that all we have decided in
this case is that the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya,
had jurisdiction to issue the permit to the appellant,
whether the permit satisfies the other conditions of a valid
inter-regional permit did not arise for consideration in
this appeal In the circumstances of the case we make no
order as to costs.
S.R. Appeal allowed.
34