1972 Supreme(Mad) 21

Madras High Court
RAMAPRASADA RAO
N.Pappu Reddiar - Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Salem - Respondent
Decided On : 01/12/1972

An application for the grant of a stage carriage permit which is not accompanied by the prescribed fee is defective ab initio and cannot be entertained by the authorities.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT - APPLICATION - FEE - PAYMENT - RULE 153-B (II) - INTERPRETATION - APPLICATION NOT ACCOMPANIED BY FEE - SUBMISSION OF TREASURY RECEIPT ON OR BEFORE DATE OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATIONS - WHETHER APPLICATION ENTERTAINABLE - HELD, NO.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a transport operator, applied for a stage carriage permit on the Town Service route Namakkal to Ponneri. The Regional Transport Authority, Salem, invited applications under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of stage carriage permit on the said route and fixed the last date for receipt of applications in due form as December 11, 1970. The petitioner and four others, including the 1st respondent, were applicants for the grant. The petitioner sent the application in due form as also the necessary proof of payment of the prescribed fee. The applications were notified under Section 57 (3) of the Act and it was made clear that the 1st respondent did not pay the prescribed fee. The 1st respondent paid the prescribed fee on December 30, 1970. The Regional Transport Authority entertained the application of the 1st respondent and granted the permit to him. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the grant in favour of the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the application of the 1st respondent was defective ab initio as the prescribed fee was not paid within the period of limitation prescribed. The court further held that Rule 153-B (ii) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, which allows an applicant to submit a treasury receipt for the prescribed fee on or before the date for the receipt of representations specified in the publication under Section 57 (3) of the Act, does not apply to cases where the fee is paid beyond the date fixed under Section 57 (2). The court held that such an application is no application at all and the authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

Issues: 1. Whether the application of the 1st respondent was defective ab initio as the prescribed fee was not paid within the period of limitation prescribed? 2. Whether Rule 153-B (ii) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules applies to cases where the fee is paid beyond the date fixed under Section 57 (2) of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the application of the 1st respondent was defective ab initio as the prescribed fee was not paid within the period of limitation prescribed. The court relied on the provisions of Section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes certain particulars and the manner in which such application has to be made to the appropriate authority. The court also relied on Rule 153-B (ii) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, which states that an application for the grant of a stage carriage permit shall not be rejected on the ground that it is not accompanied by the prescribed fee, but the omission shall be specifically pointed out in the publication of the application under Section 57 (3) of the Act so that the applicant may have an opportunity of submitting a treasury receipt for the prescribed fee on or before the date for the receipt of representation specified in the publication, failing which the application will stand rejected. 2. The court held that Rule 153-B (ii) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules does not apply to cases where the fee is paid beyond the date fixed under Section 57 (2) of the Act. The court held that the last portion of Rule 153-B (ii), though essentially enabling has a significance as well. The treasury challan referred to therein can only refer to the payment made prior to the date fixed under Section 57 (2).

Final Decision: The court made the rule nisi absolute in each of the petitions. The order of the appellate authority in W. P. No. 2534 of 1971 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the file of the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, to deal with the applications for the grant of stage carriage permits on the Town Service route in question without considering the application of the respondent and hearing his objections. In so far as W. P. Nos. 2025 and 2916 of 1971 were concerned, writs of prohibition as prayed for were issued.