Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI AND J.M.SHELAT JJ
Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. Kumbakonam, Appellant
Versus
M/s. Raman and Raman Private Ltd. and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1967. D/- 20 10-1967
Advocates appeared
M/s. G. Ramaswamy, R. Gopalakrishnan and K. K. Venugopal, Advocates, for Appellant; M/s. M. N. Rangachari, M. K Ramamurthi, Mrs. Shyamala Pappu and Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 48(3)(XXI) - VARIATION OF ROUTE - JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - RULE 208 OF MADRAS MOTOR VEHICLES RULES - POWER TO VARY PERMITS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, M/s. Raman and Raman (P) Ltd., challenged the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, which granted the application of M/s. Sir Ram Vilas Service Ltd. for variation of the route Sirkali to Kumbakonam. The variation extended beyond 24 kilometers, and the appellant contended that the Regional Transport Authority lacked jurisdiction to vary the route beyond this distance.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that Section 48(3)(xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended, did not confer power on the Regional Transport Authority to vary the route within certain limits unless a condition to that effect was included in the permit. In the present case, the permit contained a condition similar to the one mentioned in Section 48(3)(xxi) before its amendment, and therefore, the Regional Transport Authority had the authority to vary the permit under Rule 208 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 48(3)(xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended, conferred power on the Regional Transport Authority to vary the route within certain limits without a condition to that effect in the permit. 2. Whether Rule 208 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules conferred power on the Transport Authority to vary permits or was merely a procedural rule.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 48(3)(xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended, did not confer power on the Regional Transport Authority to vary the route within certain limits unless a condition to that effect was included in the permit. 2. Rule 208 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules conferred power on the Transport Authority to vary all kinds of permits or conditions attached therein.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and held that the Regional Transport Authority had the authority to vary the permit under Rule 208.
Judgement
SIKRI, J. :-This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Madras is directed against its order dated October 3, 1966, allowing the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by M/s. Raman and Raman (P) Ltd., Kumbakonam, and quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, dated March 28, 1966, whereby the Regional Transport Authority had granted the application for variation of the route Sirkali to Kumbakonam of M/s. Sir Ram Vilas Service Ltd., Kumbakonam, in respect of two stage carriages.
2. On December 9, 1965, the application of M/s. Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. Kumbakonam for variation of the route Sirkali to Kumbakonam was notified under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. M/s. Raman and Raman (P) Ltd., among others, filed objections and after hearing the objections, by order dated March 28, 1966, the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, granted the application as, according to it, the variation applied for was in the interest of the travelling public. The distance covered by the variation extended beyond 24 kilometers. M/s. Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
3. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to vary the route by extending it beyond 24 kms. The High Court, following its earlier decision in Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. v. Murugan Transports, Tiruchirapalli, (1966) Writ Petn. No. 3744 of 1965. D/- 7-9-1966 (Mad) held that "any variation in excess of 24 kilo metres would be ex facie illegal and violation of the intendment of the Legislature enacting Act 3 of 1964."
4. The answer to the question posed above depends upon the true construction of some sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the Madras Act III of 1964. The relevant statutory provisions are as follows :
"48 (1). Subject to the provisions of section 47, a Regional Transport Authority may on an application made to it under section 46, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modification as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit;
Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application.
(3) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for service of stage carriages of a specified description or for one or more particular stage carriages, and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely :
(i) that the stage carriage or stage carriages shall be used only on a specified route or routes or in a specified area.
* * * *
(xxi) that the Regional Transport Authority, may after giving notice of not less than one month :
(a) vary, extend or curtail the route or routes or the area specified in the permit.Provided that in the case of -
(i) variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by variation shall not exceed 24 kms.
(ii) extension of the distance covered by the extension shall not exceed 24 kms. from the termini.
(aa) vary any other condition of the permit."
"S. 57 (8). An application to vary the conditions of any permit other than a temporary permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or area specified in the permit or in the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the number of services above the specified maximum, or in the case of a contract carriage permit by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit."
"Rule 208 (a). Upon application made in writing by the holder of any permit, the Transport Authority may, at any time, in its discretion, vary the permit or any of the conditions thereof subject
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
