Important Point
Existence of a route is a condition precedent for exercise of the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act. Inter-State route under the scheme of the Act has to be reciprocal and cannot be unilaterally created by one State or an Authority in the State.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 88-Inter-State stage carriage route permit-Condition precedent to grant-Existence of reciprocal arrangement between States and existence of route is condition precedent for exercise of power u/s 88(1)-Unilateral creation of inter-State route by one State or an Authority in a State cannot be made-RTA opening new inter-State route and granting permit-No reciprocal agreement arrangement existed between the States-High Court holding that no route existed at time of granting permit-Subsequent cancellation of route permit by RTA-Dismissal of writ petition there against-Interference not warranted.
       Held : The argument that sub-section (1) of Section 88 has to be construed independently which did not prescribe the existence of a reciprocal arrangement regarding the inter-State route permits and sub-section (5) & (6) cannot come in the way of RTA of a State to grant the permit in a State which, when granted, becomes valid in the other State upon its being counter-signed cannot be accepted. Such an argument completely ignores the opening words of the Section “except as may be otherwise prescribed”. Such prescribing can be by way of the Act itself or by rules framed under it. Sub-section (5) provides that a proposal to enter into an agreement between the States to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area, shall be published by each of the State Government concerned in their official gazette and in any one or more newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement together with a notice of the date before which representation in connection therewith may be submitted and the date not being less than thirty days from the date of publication on which the Authority by which, and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representation received in connection therewith will be considered. Sub-section (6) provides that every agreement arrived at between the States shall, in so far as it relates to the grant of countersignature of permits, be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in the regional language circulating in the area or route covered by the agreement and the State Transport Authority of the State and the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall given effect to it. The Act envisages three categories of permit-seekers, namely (i) inter-region, (ii) intra-region and (iii) inter-State. Different criteria and procedure has been provided under the Act for granting permits in respect of each of the categories. The grant of inter-State permits with which we are concerned in these appeals are permissible under Section 88(5) of the Act. The existence of a route is a condition precedent for exercise of the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act. Inter-State route under the scheme of the Act has to be reciprocal and cannot be unilaterally created by one State or an Authority in the State. The concerned State Governments are supposed to deliberate and decide the routes to be opened as inter-State routes by determining the number of trips each route to have and prescribe other conditions for the smooth functioning of the Act to achieve its objective which is claimed to be a social welfare legislation. (Para 6)
       Accepting the submissions made on behalf of the appellants would result in frustration of the objective sought to be achieved by the Act. The interpretation put by the High Court is rationale, legal and proper. In the absence of existence of inter-State route, the authorities under the Act were not justified in granting the permits to the appellants. The existence of permit depends upon the reciprocal agreements between the States covered by the route which, admittedly, did not exist in the instant case. The orders of the Authority granting permit in favour of the appellants were thus without jurisdiction. (Para 7)

Judgment

Sethi, J.- I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 filed in Civil Appeal No. 1122 of 1998 are allowed.

2. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner is stated to have circulated a Circular Note No. 3537 for opening a route Bhadra-Delhi being the inter-State route lying within the jurisdiction of the States of Rajasthan, Haryana and U.T. Delhi. Appellant Birbal applied for grant of one stage carriage permit on the said route for which he offered his Bus Model No. 1986. Besides appellant, Abhey Singh and Kan Singh also submitted applications for the grant of permit on the same route. The Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as “RTA, Bikaner) is stated to have resolved on 22nd November, 1993 to open the said route but granted the permit in favour of Abhey Singh only for providing daily one return trip. The appellant’s application was rejected along with one Kan Singh. Being aggrieved with the order of the RTA, Bikaner, the appellant and Kan Singh filed separate appeals, the appellant’s appeal being No. 64/94 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Tribunal took up both the appeals together and allowed the same vide its order dated 4.4.1994. The Tribunal is stated to have held that the order of the RTA, Bikaner rejecting the applications of the appellants before it was wrong since the vehicles offered by both of them were within the prescribed model in Resolution No. 1 of 1993 of the State Transport Authority. The RTA, Bikaner was directed to grant stage carriage permit to the appellant in respect of his bus for providing daily one single trip on the condition that the permit would be valid on obtaining counter signatures from the concerned States. The RTA, Bikaner is stated to have issued permit in favour of the appellant vide its order dated 3.5.1993. Consequent upon the issuance of permit in its favour the appellant is stated to have started plying his Vehicle No. RJ-07/P 0777 covered by route No. 172. However, in January, 1997 appellant’s permit was cancelled by the RTA, Bikaner purportedly consequent upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court dated 7.7.1995 in Writ Petition No. 2929/94 wherein it was held that the route in dispute did not exist before the passing of the order of the RTA, Bikaner. Being aggrieved with the order of the RTA, Bikaner, cancelling the appellant’s permit a writ petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court of Rajasthan submitting therein that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31st March, 1995 passed in Civil Writ No. 1877 of 1994, confirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 361 of 1995 by its dated 7.11.1995, relied upon by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 7.7.1995 in Writ Petition No. 2929/94 had earlier been challenged in the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 18050/96 wherein leave was granted on 11.8.1997 and the operation of the judgment of the High Court stayed. It was contended that in view of the order of this Court, the cancellation of the permit was illegal and deserved to be quashed. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 862 of 1997 filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed on 22nd August, 1997. Not satisfied with the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 3341 of 1997 claimed to have been granted permit for plying their buses from Sangaria in Rajasthan to Delhi route. The aforesaid route was claimed to be part of the route Ganganagar to Delhi which was stated to be falling in the reciprocal agreement between the two States. Respondent No. 2, the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan against the grant of route permits to the appellants. A learned Single Judge of the High Court vide his order dated 31st Janu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1121

Important Point Existence of a route is a condition precedent for exercise of the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act. Inter-State route under the scheme of the Act has to be reciprocal and cannot be unilaterally created by one State or an Authority in the State.

Important Point
Existence of a route is a condition precedent for exercise of the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act. Inter-State route under the scheme of the Act has to be reciprocal and cannot be unilaterally created by one State or an Authority in the State.