1. Renewal of inter-regional stage carriage permit — Application for renewal of counter-signature — Dispute over time-bar and jurisdiction under Motor Vehicles Act and State Rules. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 253
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, Moudhapara, Raipur, Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Raipur and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. S. Gupta, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Advocate (amicus curiae), for Respondents.
Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, M.S.Gupta
B.R.L.Iyengar, M.S.Gupta
Under the Motor Vehicles Act and applicable state rules, the authority that renews an inter-regional permit is competent to renew its counter-signature, superseding the general statutory requirement for the other region's authority to perform this function.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 58, 63 and 68 - State Motor Vehicles Rules - Rules 61, 62 and 63 - Renewal of counter-signature for inter-regional permit - Application for renewal of counter-signature made after the permit was renewed - Authority of the region where the counter-signature was sought granted the renewal - High Court quashed the order on the ground that the application was time-barred under Section 58(2) of the Act - Whether the authority that renews the permit is competent to renew the counter-signature under the rules - Rule 63 provides that the authority by which a permit is renewed may likewise renew any counter-signature of the permit - This rule is subject to the proviso "except as may be otherwise prescribed" in Section 63(1) of the Act - Rule 63 supersedes the direction in Section 63(1) and Rule 62 - The authority that grants the renewal of the permit is competent to grant the counter-signature, and the authority of the other region has no such power in such circumstances - Enabling words "may" in Rule 63 are obligatory when the object is to effectuate a legal right. (Para 5)
(B) Inter-regional permit - Validity - An inter-regional permit is valid for the region over which the authority granting the permit has jurisdiction even if it is not countersigned by the proper authority for the portion of the route outside that region. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A transport service obtained renewal of a stage carriage permit for an inter-regional route from one Regional Transport Authority. Subsequently, an application for renewal of the counter-signature was made to the Regional Transport Authority of another region. The latter granted the renewal, but the order was quashed by the High Court on the grounds that the application was not made within the period prescribed by the Act.
Findings of Court:
The order granting the counter-signature by the second Regional Transport Authority was illegal and ultra vires because, under the applicable state rules, the authority that renewed the permit was the only one competent to renew the counter-signature.
Issues: Whether the application for renewal of a counter-signature must be made within the time limit prescribed for the renewal of the permit and which authority is competent to renew the counter-signature for an inter-regional permit under the relevant rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where state rules provide that the authority renewing a permit may also renew the counter-signature, such rules supersede the general statutory provision requiring the counter-signature of the other region's authority. Consequently, the power to renew the counter-signature vests in the authority that renewed the permit, rendering any such renewal by another authority ultra vires.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the time limit for permit renewal under Section 58 applies to counter-signature renewals and which authority possesses jurisdiction to grant such renewals. (Para 4 )
3. Rule 63 of the State Rules empowers the authority renewing the permit to renew the counter-signature, superseding the general provisions of Section 63(1) of the Act. (Para 5 )
4. Where State Rules empower the permit-renewing authority to renew counter-signatures, such rules supersede the statutory requirement for separate counter-signature applications to other regional authorities. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Order granting counter-signature by the incorrect Regional Transport Authority quashed as illegal and ultra vires. (Para 5 , 7 )
6. Which authority is competent to renew the counter-signature of an inter-regional permit under the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules?
Under Rule 63, the Regional Transport Authority that renews the permit is empowered to renew any counter-signature of that permit, which supersedes the general requirement in Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 5 )
7. Does the power to countersign a permit under Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act prevail over specific State Rules?
No. Section 63(1) is subject to the phrase except as may be otherwise prescribed. Therefore, State Rules framed under Section 68 of the Act supersede the directions contained in Section 63(1) of the statute. (Para 5 )
8. Is an inter-regional permit valid within the region of the granting authority if it lacks a counter-signature for another region?
Yes, an inter-regional permit remains valid for the region over which the granting authority has jurisdiction, even if it is not countersigned by the proper Regional Transport Authority for the portion of the route outside that region. (Para 6 )
Judgment
RAMASWAMI, J. : On August 7, 1963 the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur granted to the Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, (hereinafter called the appellant), renewal of a stage carriage permit for an inter-regional route-Saraipalli to Sarangarh - in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The permit was valid upto August 5, 1963 and by the order of renewal, dated August 7, 1963 the permit was renewed for a period of three years. On September 13, 1963 the appellant applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur for renewal of the grant of counter-signature on the renewed permit. Respondent No. 2 objected to the renewal of the grant of counter-signature on the ground that the application of the appellant dated September 13, 1963 was barred by time. The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, held that the application for renewal of the grant of counter-signature was not made within the time prescribed by R. 62 of the CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR MOTOR VEHICLES RULES but it took the view that the application for renewal had been filed within six weeks of the date of the passing of the order of renewal of the permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur and, therefor, the application for the renewal of the grant of counter-signature could not be rejected on the ground that it was time barred. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur accordingly granted the renewal of the counter-signature on the permit by its order, dated February 24, 1964. Respondent No. 2 thereafter applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ quashing the order, dated February 24, 1864 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur. The High Court took the view that an application for renewal of the grant of counter-signature must be made within the period prescribed by S. 58 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the appellant having failed to apply within that period, the application of the appellant for renewal of the counter-signature on the permit was barred and the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur had no jurisdiction to countersign the permit renewed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. The High Court accordingly quashed the order, dated February 24, 1964 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur. This appeal is brought by the appellant with a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution.
2. It is advisable at the stage to refer to the material provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939) which have a bearing on the validity of the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, dated February 24, 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 laying 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 prescribeds the matters which may be taken into account by that officer in granting or rejecting the applications for stage carriage permits. Section 48 provides 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 a specified area. Section 57 prescribes the procedure in "applying for and granting permits". It is provided by sub-s. (2) of S. 57 that an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier s permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall
