SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
M/s. Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co., Appellant
Versus
Behari Lal Chaurasia and another, Respondents. Madhya Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation, Intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; M/s. B. R. L., Iyengar, Manmohan Krishnan Kaul, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General of India, (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Intervener.
Even though by S.63 of the Motor Vehicles Act the power to counter-sign the permit is entrusted to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the remaining part of the route is situate, by R. 63 of the C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules the power to counter-sign can also be exercised by the Authority who grants the original permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, was, therefore, competent to grant renewal of the permit and was also competent by virtue of R. 63 to counter-sign the permit so as to make it valid also for that part of the route which lay in the Rewa region. The Legislature has, by providing in the opening part of sub-section (1) of section 63 "Except as may be otherwise prescribed", made the provision subject to the rules framed under section 68 and a rule conferring authority to counter-sign the permit in so far as it relates to other region upon the Authority who issues the permit has been made Rule 63 of the Rules, therefore, prevails over the direction of the statute.
An application was made under section 63 read with section 68 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, for renewal of the permit on the inter-regional route and also for counter-signature of the renewal of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, granted renewal of the permit, but declined to grant counter signature of the permit; in so far as it related to the Rewa region.
Held : The Authority granted the permit only operative between Jabalpur and the point at which the route entered the Rewa region: in substance, he merely granted a regional permit limited to the route within the Jabalpur region. The permit being thus a regional permit and not an inter-regional permit, there was no part of the route for which the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, could by counter-signing the permit extend it so as to make it operative within the Rewa region. In any event one Regional Transport Authority was not competent to sit in judgment over the discretion exercised by other Regional Transport Authority upon whom the power was conferred in regard to a particular matter under the statute; and hence the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, granting counter-signature in the teeth of the earlier order of the Jabalpur Authority was invalid. [Paras 7, 9 & 10]
Judgement
SHAH, J.: In 1957 the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur granted to Messrs Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company, Nowgaon-hereinafter called the appellant - a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to ply stage carriages on an interregional route-Jabalpur to Chattarpur-in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the permit was counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, within whose jurisdiction a part of the route lay. The permit was renewed in 1960 for a period of three years expiring on August 9, 1963 by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, and it was counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. On June 7, 1963 the appellant applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, for renewal of the permit, and order, dated December 6, 1963 the permit was renewed for the period ending February 9, 1966. By its application, dated December 7, 1963 the appellant requested the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, to counter-sign the permit so renewed. This application was published as required by S. 57 read with S. 63 (3) of the Act on January 2, 1964. Three motor transport operators, amongst whom was the first respondent Behari Lal Chaurasia, objected to the grant of counter-signature to the permit, inter alia, on the ground that the application was barred by the law of limitation prescribed by S. 58 (2) proviso one, and the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, had no power to grant counter-signature of renewal after the expiry of that period. The Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, overruled the objection, and by order, dated March 17, 1964 granted counter-signature of the permit.
2. The first respondent then applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a writ quashing the order, dated March 17, 1964 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. In the view of the High Court an application for renewal of the permit and an application for renewal of counter-signature must be made within the period prescribed by S. 58 (2) of the Act, and the appellant having failed to apply within that period, the application of the appellant for renewal of the counter-signature was barred and the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, had no jurisdiction to counter-sign the permit renewed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur. The High Court accordingly quashed the order, dated March 17, 1964. With certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution, the appellant has appealed to this Court.
3. It may be convenient in the first instance to refer to the material provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 which have a bearing on the validity of the order dated March 17, 1964. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles. By the proviso to S. 45 it is enacted that where it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies. Section 47 sets out the procedure of the Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for stage carriage permits and prescribes the matters which may be taken into account by that officer in granting or rejecting the applications for stage carriage permits. By S. 48 it is provided that subject to the provisions of S. 47, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it, grant a stage carriage permit, in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit, valid for a specified route or routes or specified area. Sub-section (3) of S. 48 authorises the Authority to grant a stage carriage permit subject to one or more of the conditions specified therein. Section 57 prescribes the procedure in "applying for and granting p
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.