Important Point
Route permit granted to State Road Transport Corporation to ply vehicles in notified routes in a scheme framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 will continue to remain valid till the scheme is in force and would not require any renewal during subsistence of the scheme.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sections 58(2)(a), 68-B and 68-F-U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940-Rule 10(4)-Permit to State Road Transport Corporation - Notified routes-Duration of permit granted to State Road Transport Corporation for plying vehicles in such route is co-terminus with life of scheme-Renewal of permit under Section 68-F(1)(E) is not required.
       Held : A combined reading of Section 68-B, 68-F(1-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 plying 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”. (Para 8)
       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 plying 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 plying its vehicles 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. Consequently, the permit obtained by the Corporation to ply the vehicles on 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. (Paras 9 & 10)

Order

C.A.No. 4637 of 1998 (@ SLP (C) No. 13937/92)

Leave granted.

2. 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.

3. 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 for 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) of 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 special leave calls in question that judgment and order of the High Court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

5. 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.

6. 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 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 Autho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

1998 Supreme(SC) 906

Important PointRoute permit granted to State Road Transport Corporation to ply vehi­cles in notified routes in a scheme framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 will continue to remain valid till the scheme is in force and would not require any renewal during subsistence of the scheme.

Judicial Analysis

Important Point
Route permit granted to State Road Transport Corporation to ply vehicles in notified routes in a scheme framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 will continue to remain valid till the scheme is in force and would not require any renewal during subsistence of the scheme.