1957 Supreme(SC) 22

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(S) (V 44 C 74 June)
(From: Writ Appeals Nos. 42 and 88 of 1956, D/- 27-4-1956 & 13-7-1956 (Mad.))
19th February 1957
VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S.K. DAS AND GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
V.C.K. Bus Service Ltd., Appellant
Versus
 The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 323 and 324 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Messrs. J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of Messrs. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Appellant.
Mr. C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India. (Messrs. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates, with, him), for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Headnote: Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 58(1), 58(2), 2 (20) Renewed permit-Nature of-Effect of cancellation of previous permit.

       Renewal of permit subject to implied condition rendering it inoperative-Validity-Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, Rule 134(A).

       Towards the end of 1952, the appropriate authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,decided to grant two additional permits for stage carriages -and invited applications there for under section 57 of the Act. There were as many a839 applicants, and by order dated 3rd December 19152, the Regional Transport Authority granted one permit to T and another to V. There were appeals by some of the unsuccessful applicants to the Central Road Traffic Board, which by its order dated 19th February 1953 set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the permits one to S and another to G. Revisions were preferred against this order by the aggrieved applicants under section 64-A of the Act and by its order dated 9.7.1953, the Government confirmed the grant of the permit to S but set .aside the permit given to G and granted it instead to A. Thereupon T and V moved the High Court of Madras under Art. 226 of the Constitution for writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Central Road Traffic Board dated 19.2.1953 and of the government dated 9.7.1953 but the applications were dismissed. Against the order of dismissal appeals were preferred and they were also dismissed on 21.3.1956. The operation of the order dated 19.2.1953 had been stayed pending the disposal of the revision under section -64-A and the writ proceedings in the High Court with the result that both T and V which had been granted permits by the Regional Transport Authority on 3.2.1952 continued to run their buses notwithstanding cancellation of those permits on 19.2.1953. It further transpired that in June 1954 the business of V which was the grantee of one of the permits under the order -of the Regional Transport Authority dated 3.12.1952 was taken over by a limited company, the appellant, and by an order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 7.7.1954 it was recognized as the tsansferee of the permit granted to V.

       The permit which vas the subject-matter of litigation aforesaid was for a period of one year and a half, and it expired on 30.6.1954. Before its expiry the appellant applied on 15.4.1954 for a renewal thereof for a period of three years. This application was duly notified under section m of the Act, and objections to the grant were preferred by both S, and A. On 5.9.1954 the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to the appellant for a period of one year from 1.7.1954 to 30.6.1955. On 19.3.1955 the appellant again applied for a renewal of the permit, and that was also notified under section 57, and no objections having been filed to, the grant thereof, the Regional Transport Authority by its order dated 23.6.1955 renewed the permit for a period of three years from 1.7.1955 to 30.6.1958. It is this permit that formed the subject of the litigation under reference.

       Apprehending that the Regional Transport Authority might, in view of the judgment of the High Court, cancel the permit which was renewed on 23.6.1955, the appellant filed a writ petition for a writ of prohibition restraining the Regional Transport Authority from cancelling the permit and. that was dismissed on the ground that when the original permit was set aside, the renewal thereof fell to the ground. The appellant field an appeal against this order but that was also dismissed holding that rehewal having been obtained on the basis of a permit which had been subsequently cancelled, it could not be regarded as a fresh permit, that when the original permit was set aside, it must be taken to be non est for all purposes, and that the renewal must therefore be held to be a nullity. There was an appeal from the order of the High Court to the Supreme Court.

       After the High Court had delivered the judgment in appeal, the respondents S and A applied to the Regional Transport Authority to grant them permits in accordance with the decision of the High Court, and on 5th May 1956 the Regional Transport Authority cancelled the permit granted by it on 23rd June 1955 in favour of the appellant, and granted permits instead to the respondents. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition to quash the order dated 5th May 1956. That petition was dismissed and so also the appeal from it. There was an appeal from this order also to the Supreme Court.

       Held: (1) A reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and of the rules leads indubitably to the conclusion that a renewal is a continuation of the permit previously granted. The fact that the grant of renewal is not a matter of course, or that it is open to the authorities to impose fresh conditions at the time of renewal does not, when the permit is in fact renewed, after its character as a renewal.

       Consequently, when the High Court by its judgment dated 21st March 1956 passed in the stay writ appeal upheld the cancellation of the permit which had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority on 3rd December 1952 to V, the permit renewed on 23rd June 1955 became ineffective at least as from that date. The Regional Transport Authority was therefore right in treating it as having become void, and granting by its order dated 5th May 1956 permits to the respondents.

       (2) It is undoubted law that when the terms of a contract or grant are reduced to writing, no condition can be implied, therein which will be inconfii8llent with its expressed terms. But the contention of the respondents involves no conflict with this principle. They do not seek to obtain any modification or alteration of the terms of the permit, leaving it to operate such modification or alteration. They want that the whole permit with all its terms as to duration and otherwise should be held to have become inoperative. What their pleading is a condition subsequent on the happening of Which the permit will cease. There is no legal obstacle to imply a condition that the renewal should stand cancelled if the right of the appellant to, the original permit was negatived by the High Court. - Contract Act, 1872, Section 56-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Section 58 -:Renewal of permit subject to implied condition rendering it in, operative-Validity.