Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/08/1978
BENCH:
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1959, Section 48(3) (xiv.) and
63(2)-Scope of
HEADNOTE:
The Governments of the States of Punjab and Delhi
entered into an agreement about 30 years back providing for
the running of public service vehicles on routes which
covered each of the two States so that every one of such
routes had one terminus in one of the States and the other
in the other. In Pursuance of the agreement one of the
Governments would issue permits under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 and the same would be countersigned by the other
State before the former plied its buses on the routes
covered by such routes. One such permit related to the
Delhi-Karnal route and was countersigned by the State
’Transport Authority, Delhi. The routes were extend d by the
Punjab State authorities under permits granted by them for
intra-state routes connecting different towns in the State
of Punjab itself. Thus a permit was issued in favour of the
Punjab Roadways for the route from Karnal to Chandigarh so
that the bus operating on the Delhi-Karnal route would carry
passengers from Delhi to Chandigarh via Karnal. In 1966, the
appellant objected to the exploitation by the State of
Punjab of the inter-State routes in the manner above stated,
that is, by extending them beyond the termini specified in
That behalf under the counter signatures made by the State
of Delhi, and approached the Inter-State Transport
Commission constituted under s. 63-A of M.V. Act With a
request for interference. The Commission answered it in
favour of the appellant State, and held that it would not
be in order that if one vehicle operating of two permits for
two routes were to book direct passengers travelling on both
the routes. Operations which would contravene this advice
should be stopped and the services be so regulated to ensure
that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are not
violated". The State of Punjab went up in appellate to the
Inter State Transport Appellate Tribunal under rule 24 of
the Inter-State Transport Commission Rules 1960. The appeal
was dismissed and the respondent State filed a writ petition
in the Delhi High Court which was allowed by the Division
Bench.
Dismissing the appeal by certificate the Court,
^
HELD:
(1) According to clause (xiv) of sub-section (3) of s.
48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1959, the conditions attached
to the grant of permit, under s. 63(2) ibid, may be; (a)
that the tickets issued to passengers, shall bear specified
particulars; (b) that the tickets shall show the fares
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
actually charged; and (C) that records of the tickets issued
shall be kept in the manner specified. None of these
conditions embraces a restriction on the permit holder that
he shall not ply his vehicles beyond the specified inter-
state route even if that is done under another permit which
is valid according to law and, therefore, clause (xiv) of s.
48(3) read with s. 63(2) of the Act will be of no avail.
[76H, 77A-C]
71
(2) ’The words "Tickets will be issued for the
destinations between Delhi and Karnal. Destination boards
should be exhibited" merely lay down positive instruction
which the permit-holder had to carry out, namely, that he
would not refuse the issue of a ticket between the two
termini, i.e, Delhi and Karnal. and that he would also
exhibit a board stating that the vehicle in question would
cover the route from Delhi to Karnal. Beyond that the words
do not go and cannot be construed to mean that the vehicle
could not ply beyond Karnal or that a board saying, that it
was going to Canceling via Karnal could not be exhibited, or
that tickets could not be issued for any stations except
those lying between Delhi and Karnal. In fact, the authority
counter-signing the permit had no concern at all with any
route beyond Karnal. The plying to the vehicle from Karnal
to Chandigarh would be governed not by the permit covering
the Delhi-Karnal route or by the counter-signature on it by
another permit issued by the authority competent to deal
with the route between Karnal and Chandigarh. [77D-H]
(3) The plying of vehicles by the Haryana,. Roadways
beyond the inter-state route. under valid permits issued by
the competent authority does not amount to an "extension" of
the route such as is prohibited by the Act. [77H. 78A]
The language of sub-section (8) of s. 57 of the Act
applies only to a case Where the permit holder applies for
variation of the conditions of his permit by inclusion of a
new route or routes or a new area or by increasing the
number of services above the specified maximum In the
instant case, this situation does not arise at all inasmuch
as the Haryana. Roadways has not applied for The vacation of
any permit in any way and has, on the other hand, taken and
exploited quite another permit for an entirely different
rout from another competent authority. [78E-F]
OBSERVATlON:
[If any long distance passengers arc given preference
over those leaving Delhi for a station Lying between the
termini; specified in any permit bearing the counter-
signature of the Delhi state authorities. a peremptory
condition attached to the counter-signature would have been
violated and that State would l be entitled to take such
action as may be open to it under the law].
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1800 of
1968
From the Judgment and order dated 20-10-1967 of the
Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 1376 of 1967.
S. N. Kacker, Sol. Genl., S. N. Anand and R. N.
Sachthey for the Appellant.
V. M. Tarkunde and Gautam Goswami for Respondent No. 1.
Yogeshwar Prasad and (Mrs.) Rani Chhabra for the
Interveners.
Ex-parte against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
72
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KOSHAL, J.-The facts giving rise to this appeal by the
Delhi Administration on certificate granted by the High
Court of Delhi against its judgment dated the 20th October
1967 in a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India (Civil Writ Petition No. 1376/ 67) are
not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The Governments of
the States of Punjab and Delhi entered into an agreement
about 3() years back providing for the running of public
service vehicles in routes which covered each of the two
States so that every one of such routes had one terminus in
one of the States and the other in the other. In pursuance
of the agreement one of the Governments would issue permits
under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) and the same would be counter-signed by the
other State before the former plied its buses on the routes
covered by such permits. One such permit related to the
Delhi-Karnal route and was countersigned by the State
Transport Authority Delhi in the following terms:
"Countersigned for the portion of the route Delhi
Karnal from 31-7-1967 to 30-11-1967 subject to the
condition that tickets will be issued for the
destinations bet wen Delhi and Karnal. Destination
board should be exhibited. Bus will cover the full
route and all other conditions applicable under Motor
Vehicle Laws."
Other permits for the Delhi-Karnal route and other
interstate routes were counter-signed in the same terms.
The routes above-mentioned were extended by the Punjab
State authorities under permits granted by them for intra-
State routes connecting different towns in the State of
Punjab itself. Thus a permit was issued in favour of the
Punjab roadways for the route from Karnal to Chandigarh so
that the bus operating on the Delhi-Karnal route would carry
passengers from Delhi to Chandigarh via Karnal.
On the 25th July 1956, officers of the two States came
to an agreement whereby the State of Punjab was given the
right to extend its services on inter-State routes to any
town in the State of Punjab. This agreement was subject to
ratification by the Governments of the Two States,
which‘was, however, never accorded.
In the year 1966, the State of Delhi objected to the
exploitation by the State of Punjab of the inter-State
routes in the manner above stated, that is, by extending
them beyond the termini specified in that behalf under the
counter-signatures made by the State of Delhi and approached
the Inter-State Transport Commission (hereinafter called the
commissions) constituted under sub-section (1) of Section
63A of the Act with
73
a request for interference. After hearing counsel for the
two States the Commission passed an order dated 27th August,
1966, in favour of the State of Delhi. ’the operative part
of that order alongwith the reasons listed by the Commission
in support of it is extracted below:
"Section 48(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,
prescribes that every stage carriage permit shall be
expressed to B. be valid only for a specified route or
routes of for a specified area. It appears, therefore,
that if a permit is expressed to be valid only for the
one specified inter-State route, the same transport
vehicle covered by the same inter-State permit can not
be allowed to proceed further to another route with
liberty to pick up passengers in route on a second
route, which is C: an intra-State route, as this would
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
be in violation of the provisions of the Act. There is
no objection to the same vehicle running on another
route under a different permit, but it would be
objectionable if passengers who embark on the route
covered by the inter-State permit are given direct
tickets to any town on the second route for which the
vehicle holds on intra-State permit. The issue of scull
a direct ticket would amount to extending the span to
the inter-State route, which is not permissible under
the Motor Vehicles Act. In other words, there can be no
objecting to the linking of the two routes but this
linking should not involve boarding of direct
passengers, i.e., those holding one ticket for travel
over both the routes on either of the two routes.
"On a careful consideration of the provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act, the Commission advise under
Section 63A(2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, that it
would not be in order if one vehicle operating on two
permits for two routes were to book direct passengers
travelling on both the routes on direct tickets for
places on both the routes. Operations which would
contravene this advice should be stopped and the
services be so regulated to ensure that the provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act are not violated "
The State of Punjab went up in appeal to the Inter-
State Trans-port Appellant Tribunal (hereinafter called the
’Tribunal) under rule 24 of the Inter-State Transport
Commission Rules, 1960. That appeal was dismissed on the 4th
July 1967 through an order, paragraph 3 to 7 of which may be
re-produced for facility of reference:
"3. The learned counsel for the Delhi
Administration replied that the issue of tickets was a
condition of a permit under Section 48(3) (xiv) of the
Motor Vehicles Act. The 6-520SCI/78
74
inter-State permit from Delhi to Karnal was, therefore,
subject to the condition that tickets bearing specified
particulars shall be issued to passengers and shall
show the fares actually charged. This must be construed
to mean that the ticket which is issued as a condition
attaching to a single permit would be restricted to the
route or routes covered by that permit. As the inter-
State route alone is covered by the permit which is
countersigned by the Delhi Administration, the said
permit would require the issue of a ticket only on the
Delhi-Karnal route but not beyond.
"4. We think that the contention of the Delhi
Administration is further supported by Section 42(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act under which no owner of a
"transport vehicle" (which includes a stage carriage)
shall use the vehicle in any public place, save in
accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or
countersigned by a Regional or a State Transport
Authority authorising the use of the vehicle in that
place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.
The vehicle starting from Delhi on the Delhi Karnal
route would be governed by the conditions of the inter-
State permit countersigned by the Delhi Administration.
The use of the vehicle at Delhi or, for the matter of
that, at any place on the inter-State route, must be
governed by the conditions of the inter-State permit
alone. We have already construed session 48(3) (xiv) to
mean that the tickets which must be issued as a
condition of the permit must relate to the route or
routes or area covered by that permit. It would follow
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
therefore that tickets to be issued from Delhi could
not be for any place which was beyond Karnal and,
therefore, not covered by the inter-State permit.
"5. Learned Counsel for the Government of Punjab
submitted that the Delhi Administration has
countersigned only the inter-State route covered by a
permit issued by the Government of Punjab with the
knowledge that the same permit was valid floor a
further intra-State route also. This. however, cannot
mean that the Delhi Administration are estopped from
contending that under the conditions of the inter-State
permit, a ticket for a place beyond the Inter State
route cannot be issued.
"6. From the point of view of the convenience of
the passengers, we would have liked the vehicle
starting from Delhi to issue a long distance ticket to
a place even beyond
75
Karnal so that the passengers starting from Delhi could
A be assured of reaching their destination beyond
Karnal. Unfortunately, the attainment of this objective
has been fettered by the existing provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act referred to above.
"7. For the above reasons, therefore, we are of
the view that the advice given by the Inter-State
Transport Commission was, on the whole, correct, though
we have taken the liberty of adding to the reasons on
which the advice could be supported. The appeal is,
therefore, dismissed."
This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State
of Haryana (which had been carved out of the erstwhile State
of Punjab in the meantime) in the petition under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which we have
mentioned above and which has been accepted by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The High Court took note
of the various provisions of the Act and concluded that
there was no warrant for the proposition that tickets could
not be issued at Delhi for stations beyond Karnal by the
Haryana Roadways for a bus operating under a permit in
respect of the Delhi-Karnal route and that the Commission
and the Tribunal had both erred in holding to the contrary.
The High Court observed that under clause (xiv) of sub-
section (3) of Section 48 of the Act, the Delhi State could
impose conditions subject to which its countersignature in
relation to a permit covering an inter-state route was to be
valid, but added that such. conditions could only be those
which were covered by that clause and no others. It further
found that no condition preventing the permit-holder from
issuing a direct ticket from Delhi to Chandigarh via Karnal
was ever imposed by the State Transport Authority, Delhi,
and also that such a condition could not be imposed inasmuch
as (a) the same would not be relatable to the inter-State
route and (b) it would not be covered by clause (xiv)
aforesaid. It turned down a plea that the issuance of
tickets from Delhi to Chandigarh by the Haryana Roadways
affected the identity of the Delhi-karnal route or amounted
to its extension. In the result, therefore, the High Court
issued a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the
Commission and the Tribunal and restrained the Delhi
Administration from interfering with the operation of the
Stage carriages of the State of Haryana on the Delhi-Haryana
inter-state routes on the plea that the issue of direct
tickets beyond the terminal stations in Haryana on those
routes was prohibited either by the provisions of the Act or
by any condition attached by the State Transport Authority,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
Delhi.
76
2. Before us, the contentions raised on behalf of the
appellant are:
(1) The Regional Transport Authority, Delhi, had the
power under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 63 read with clause (xiv)
above mentioned to impose, while according its counter-
signature to a permit relating to an inter-State route, a
condition to the effect that tickets shall not be issued for
any station beyond the two specified termini and such a
condition could be spelt out of the counter-signature above
extracted by necessary implication.
(2) The counter-signatures covered only inter-State
routes having specified termini and the issuance of tickets
by the Haryana Roadways for stations beyond the terminus
located in the Haryana State and specified in a particular
permit (which has been countersigned by the Delhi State
authorities) amounted to an extension of the route which the
Act did not permit.
We find no force in either of these contentions for the
reasons which follow and which are substantially the same as
advanced by the High Court in the detailed judgment under
appeal.
3. Sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the Act states:
"(2) A Regional Transport authority when
countersigning the permit may attach to the
permit any condition which it might have
imposed if it has granted The ’permit, . and
may likewise vary any condition attached to
the permit by the Authority by which the
permit was granted."
The conditions which a Regional Transport Authority may
attach to a permit while granting it are contained in clause
(xiv) above mentioned which runs thus:
(xiv) that tickers bearing specified particulars
shall be is sued to passengers and shall show
the fares actually charged and that records
of tickets, issued shall he kept in a
specified manner;"
According to this clause, the conditions attached to
the grant of a permit may be-
(a) that the tickets issued to passengers shall
bear specified particulars;
77
(b) that the tickets shall show the fares
actually charged; A and
(c) that records of the tickets issue(l shall be
kept in the manner specified.
None of these conditions embraces a restriction on the
permit holder that he shall not ply his vehicle beyond the
specified inter-state route even if that is done under
another permit which is valid according to law, and we,
therefore, do not see how clause (vix) as above extracted
read with sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 of the Act helps the case of
the appellant.
4. Nor can we agree with the plea that the counter-
signature above extracted could be construed as laying down
a condition that the permit-holder could not ply his vehicle
beyond the specified terminus in the State of Haryana.
Learned counsel for the appellant has laid emphasis on the
words "Tickets will be issued for the destinations between
Delhi and Karnal. Destination boards should be exhibited,"
and wants us to interpret them as implying a prohibition on
the use of the concerned vehicles beyond Karnal. We are of
the opinion, however, that no such interpretation can be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
placed on them. They merely lay down positive instructions
which the permit-holder had to carry out, namely, that he
would not refuse the issue of a ticket between the two
termini, i.e., Delhi and Karnal, and that he would also
exhibit a board stating that the vehicle in question would
cover the route from Delhi to Karnal. Beyond that the words
do not go and cannot be construed to mean that the vehicle
could not ply beyond p Karnal or that a board saying that it
was going to Chandigarh via Karnal cloud not be exhibited,
or that tickets could not be issued for any stations except
those lying between Delhi and Karnal. In fact, the authority
counter-signing the permit had no concern at all with any
route beyond Karnal. The playing J of the vehicle from
Karnal to Chandigarh would be governed not by the permit
covering the Delhi-Karnal route or by the counter-signature
on it but by another permit issued by the authority
competent to deal with the route between Karnal and
Chandigarh. The first contention raised on behalf of the
appellant is, therefore, found to be without substance.
5. We also find no force in the plea that the plying of
vehicles by the Haryana Roadways beyond the inter-State
route under valid permits issued by the competent authority
would amount to an
78
"extension" of the route such as is prohibited by the Act.
Reliance in support of the plea was placed on sub-s. (8) of
S. 57 of the Act which lays down:
"(8) An application to vary the conditions of any
permit, other than a temporary permit, by the
inclusion of Ba new route or routes or a new
area or, in the case of a stage carriage
permit, by increasing the number of trips
above the specified maximum or by altering
the route covered by it or in the case of a
contract carriage permit or a public
carrier’s permit, by increasing the number of
vehicles covered by the Permit, shall be
treated as an application for the grant of a
new permit:
Provided that it shall not be necessary
so to treat an application made by the holder
of a stage carriage permit who provides the
only service on any route Or in any area to
increase the frequency of the service so
provided, without any increase in me number
of vehicles."
As pointed out by the High Court, the language of the
sub-section applies only to a case where the permit-holder
applies for the variation of the conditions of his permit by
inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by
increasing the number of services above the specified
maximum. In the case before us this situation does not arise
at all inasmuch as the Haryana Roadways has not applied for
the variation of any permit in any way and has, on the other
hand, taken and exploited quite another permit for an
entirely different route from another competent authority.
Apart from sub-sec. (8) above mentioned, we have not been
referred to any provision of the Act in support of the plea
under consideration which, therefore, fails.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention
to a Possible unfortunate situation which might result from
the conclusions which the High Court has reached and, in our
opinion, reached rightly. His apprehension was that in order
to make more money and to avoid inconvenience to itself the
Haryana Roadways, while operating under the permit
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
pertaining to the Delhi-Karnal route, would perhaps not
issue any tickets to passengers bound for stations lying II
in between Delhi and Karnal so long as it could find
customers travelling directly from Delhi to Chandigarh and
that in that event the real purpose of the counter-signature
would be wholly defeated. We
79
would certainly not approve of such a situation but then it
is nobody’s A case that the Haryana Roadways has been plying
its buses on the Delhi-Chandigarh route or, for that matter,
any other route, in that fashion. However, we may make it
clear that if any long distance passengers are given
preference over those leaving Delhi for a station lying
between the termini specified in any permit bearing the
countersignature of the Delhi State authorities, a
peremptory condition attach- ed to the counter-signature
would have been violated, and that State would be entitled
to take such action as may be open to it under the law.
subject to this observation, the appeal fails and is
dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.
80