SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.
M/s. Shiv Chand Amolak Chand, Appellants
Versus
The Regional Transport Authority and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3787 of 1983
Decided on 7-10-1983.
The law must now be taken to be well settled that an application for grant of a new permit cannot be entertained by the Regional Transport Authority under section 48 unless the limit of the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted is first determined under section 47 sub section (3) There are two independent steps required to be taken in connection With the grant of a permit, the first being the determination by the Reasonal Transport Authority under section 47 Sub-section (3) of the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted and the second being that "thereafter applications for stage carriage permits can be in tertained" and therefore, it would mean that before an application for grant of a permit can be entertained by the regional Transport Authority, there would be a determination under section 47 Sub-section (3). AIR 1970 SC 1542 relied on. [Para 7
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -Ss. 57 (8), 47 (3) and 48-application under S. 57 (8) for a short extention of route - proceedure prescribed under S.47 (3) not to be followed - it cannot be treated application for new permit for that purpose.
An applicant for a permit on a route which is not merely technically, but in truth and reality a different route, distinct from the original route, may not be permitted to defeat the provision enacted in section 47 Sub-section (3) by labelling his application as one for varying the conditions of the premit and in such a case, the procedure set out in section 47 Sub-section (3) may have to be complied with before the Regional Trans port Authority can consider and grant the application. But where an application merely seeks a short extension of the route specified in the permit as in the present case, it would not be appropriate to say that it is an application for grant of a new permit, though technically the extended route may not be regarded as the same as the original route and where such is the case, it would not be necessary to comply with the procedure set out in sub-section (3) of section 47. AIR 1959 SC 1130 and AIR 1970 SC 466 referred to. [Para 7
JUDGMENT
BHAGWATI, J.:—This appeal by special leave raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question is whether Section 47, sub-section (3) of the Act is attracted when an application is made by the holder of a permit for extension of the route for which the permit has been granted to him. In order to appreciate the question, it is necessary to state a few facts giving rise to the appeal.
2. The appellants are a partnership firm and at all material times they held a stage carriage permit granted to them by the Regional Transport Authority for the route Dabra-Karera via Lodi Mata extended up to Gwalior. It appears that on 22nd June, 1978 this route for which the permit was held by the appellants was modified at the request of the appellants and the portion of the route from Karera to Shivpuri was deleted. Thereafter by a Notification dated 4th Aug., 1978 certain routes were nationalised under Scheme No. 11-M which came into force with effect from 25th Sept., 1978 and under Cl. 7 (b) of this Scheme, the portion of the routes from Shivpuri to Satanwara was deleted and the permit of the appelllants remained operative only for the remaining portion of the route, namely, Satanware-Gwalior via Dabra. This state of affairs continued from 25th September 1978 until 18th December 1978 when the State Government by a Notification issued in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 68-F of the Act made the following modifications in the various schemes approved by it under Section 68-D sub-section (2), including Scheme No. 11-M :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Scheme, the private operators way be permitted to ply stage carriages for hire or reward subject to the following conditions, namely :
(1) Whereas the notified route connects a district Head-quarter, the portion thereof covered by the permit shall not exceed 20 kilometers and in other cases it shall not exceed 10 kilometers.
(2) The private operators shall ply the stage carriage over the distance, other than the distance of the notified route, which shall not be less than twice the distance of the notified route covered by the permit;
(3) The private operators shall not pick-up or set-down passengers on the notified route. Since this modification permitted plying of stage carriages by private operators even on portion of a nationalised route connecting a district headquarters and not more than 20 kms. in length, the appellants made an application to the Regional Transport Authority for restoring the portion of the route from Shivpuri to Satanwara on the ground that Shivpuri was a district headquarters and the portion of the route between Shivpuri and Satanwara was less than 20 kilometers. The Regional Transport Authority however took the view and in our opinion rightly, that the modification made by the State Government in Scheme No. 11-M under the Notification dated 18th December, 1978 did not have any retrospective effect and the appellants were therefore not entitled to automatic restoration of the portion of the route front Shivpuri to Satanwara and in this view, the Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of the appellants.
3. The appellants thereupon filed a regular application in the prescribed form for extension of the route specified in their permit from Satanwara to Shivpuri. The application was published in the Gazette on 11th April, 1980 and on coming to know about it, M. P. State Road Transport Corporaties which in the 2nd respondent before us filed its objections against the grant of, such extension. The application together with the objections was heard by the Regional Transport Authority and by an order dated 11th September 1980 the Regional Transport Authority rejected the application an two grounds. The first ground was that "the specific order of the State Government curtailing the Satanwara
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.