1. Transport operators challenged the renewal of stage carriage permits for a period shorter than the statutory minimum under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (Para 2 , 3 , 13 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 197
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6th November, 1959.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, J.L. KAPUR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
(1) Y. Mahaboob Sheriff and Sons (in Petn. No. 54 of 1959),
(2) Y. Mahaboob Sheriff and others (in Petn. No. 75 of 1959),
(3) S. Shamsoddin and others (in Petn. No. 76 of 1959), Petitioners
Versus
Mysore State Transport Authority, Bangalore and others, Respondents.
Petns. Nos. 54, 75 and 76 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Advocate, with him), for Petitioners; Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Addl. Solicitor-General of India (M/s. R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him) for Respondent No. 3 in Petns. Nos. 54, 75 and 76 of 1959.
Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, H.N.SANYAL, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, T.M.SEN
B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, H.N.SANYAL, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, T.M.SEN
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the statutory duration of three to five years for stage carriage permits applies equally to their renewals, as renewal applications must be disposed of as if they were applications for a permit.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 58(1)(a) and 58(2) - Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(g) - Duration of stage carriage permits and their renewal - A stage carriage permit must be effective without renewal for a period not less than three years and not more than five years - Section 58(2) provides that an application for renewal shall be made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit - This implies that all incidents applying to a permit, including the duration specified in Section 58(1)(a), apply to a renewal - The phrase "without renewal" in Section 58(1)(a) is intended to ensure that the period of renewal is not added to the original period to exceed the five-year limit, and does not exclude renewals from the three-to-five-year duration requirement. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Severability of Orders - Where an authority has decided to grant a renewal but specifies an illegal duration, the court can sever the illegal part of the order and direct the authority to comply with the statutory duration requirements, provided the grant of renewal itself is valid and certain. (Paras 10a, 11)
(C) Constitution of India - Articles 32 and 226 - Scope of powers - The power to issue directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights is wide and not confined by the technical rules of English law, allowing the court to issue a direction in the nature of mandamus to an authority to perform a statutory duty. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Transport operators applied for renewal of stage carriage permits. The transport authority renewed the permits for a period of only one year, despite the statutory provision for permits to be valid for three to five years. The operators challenged this as a violation of their fundamental right to carry on business, arguing that renewals should follow the same duration rules as initial permits.
Findings of Court:
The court found that Section 58(2) of the Act requires renewal applications to be treated as applications for a permit. Consequently, the duration mandated by Section 58(1)(a) for permits (3-5 years) must also apply to renewals. The court also held that the illegal duration could be severed from the order of renewal.
Issues: Whether the duration of three to five years prescribed for a stage carriage permit under Section 58(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, applies to the renewal of such permits under Section 58(2), and whether the court can direct the authority to correct the duration without quashing the entire renewal order.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the law mandates that a renewal application be disposed of "as if it were an application for a permit," all statutory requirements for a permit, including the minimum three-year and maximum five-year duration, apply to renewals. The court may sever an illegal duration from a renewal order and direct the authority to comply with the law if the decision to renew was already made.
Result: Petitions allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- transport law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed statutory entitlement to three-to-five-year renewals; respondents argued the Authority has discretion to fix any reasonable renewal period. (Para 4 , 5 , 14 )
3. Section 58(2) requires renewal applications to be disposed of as if they were permit applications, making the duration limits in Section 58(1)(a) applicable. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. A renewal of a stage carriage permit must be for a period of not less than three years and not more than five years under Section 58. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Petitions allowed; the part of the orders limiting renewal duration quashed, directing the Authority to comply with Section 58(1)(a) read with Section 58(2). (Para 12 , 16 , 26 , 27 )
6. Does the statutory duration for a fresh stage carriage permit apply to its renewal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?
Yes. Since Section 58(2) mandates that renewal applications be disposed of as if they were applications for a permit, the duration limits of three to five years specified in Section 58(1)(a) apply to renewals. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
7. Can the court direct an administrative authority to fix a specific statutory duration instead of merely quashing the order?
Yes. Where the authority's discretion is circumscribed by a statutory duty to specify a certain period, the court can direct the authority to carry out that specific legal duty once the decision to renew has been made. (Para 11 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J.: (For himself, Sinha, C.J.I., and Imam and K. C. Das Gupta, JJ.) These are two connected petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution and raise similar points and will be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The brief facts necessary for their disposal are these: The petitioners are transport operators in what is known as the Anekal-pocket of the State of Mysore. They held stage carriage permits for various routes, which were expiring on March 31, 1958. They therefore applied for the renewal of the permits on various dates in January 1958 as required under the law. Normally, their applications should have been disposed of before March 31, 1958. However, on February 1, the Mysore Government Road Transport Department (hereinafter called the Department) made applications under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939, (hereinafter called the Act) for grant of permits on the same routes for which renewal applications were pending. The Department followed this up by a letter dated February 25, 1958, to the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, (hereinafter called the Authority). In this letter, the Authority was informed that the Department had already submitted applications for grant of permits for operation of transport vehicles in the Anekal pocket and it was proposed to take over these routes with effect from April 1, 1958. It was also pointed out that the Government of Mysore had been pursuing the policy of nationalisation of road transport services with a view to rationalise and coordinate the various forms of transport and that the Department was operating 1200 vehicles on 700 routes. The letter went on the point out the advantages of granting permits to the Department resulting in rationalisation of the routes in the Anekal pocket in which at that time there were 20 routes and 58 operators. It was therefore requested that the permits of the petitioners should not be renewed and fresh permits granted to the Department.
3. The Authority met a number of times from March to July 1958 but passed no orders on the applications of the petitioners nor on those of the Department. Eventually, on August 11, 1958, the Authority dismissed the petitioners applications for renewal as well as the Department s for grant of fresh permits. We must say that this appears to be a curious order, for the result of this order strictly would be that no stage carriages would be able to ply on these routes. However, both parties appealed on September 9, 1958, against the orders of August 11. In the meantime, a scheme under S. 68C of Chapter IV-A of the Act was published. This scheme was approved on October 24, 1958, while the appeals were pending. On October 30, the appeals of both parties were allowed and the matter was remanded to the Authority for fresh disposal. In the meantime, however, the petitioners had applied to the High Court for quashing the scheme and it was quashed by the High Court on December 3, 1958. Thereafter the Authority met again and passed orders renewing the permits of the petitioners for a period of one year from April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959. The petitioners went up in appeal against the orders granting them renewal only for one year on the ground that they were entitled to renewal for three years at least under S. 58 of the Act. Their appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. They also applied to the High Court of Mysore under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution but their petition was dismissed in limine and a certificate to enable them to appeal to this Court was refused on March 30, 1959. Thereafter the present petitions were filed in this Court. In the meantime, however, a fresh scheme was published on January 22, 1959, and after necessary formalities was approved on April 15, 1959, and finally published as an approved scheme on April 23, 1959. What happended thereafter is not really material for purposes of these petitions but we may as well mention it to complete the narrative. The D
