Offence committed outside the territorial limits.

This is an appeal against the Judgment of Ganapatia Pillai, J., in W.P. No. 965 of 1959 declining to issue a rule nisi in a matter relating to the suspension of a motor stage carriage permit. The appellant is the proprietor of a bus service called ‘Manonmani Amman Bus Service. ‘She was granted a permit by the Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot, for running a bus from Tiruvannamalai in North Arcot district to Pondicherry. A part of the route lies in the South Arcot district. The permit granted to the appellant was therefore counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of South Arcot. On 12th April, 1959, the SubInspector made a surprise check on the running bus. He found that there was an overload of the bus by three passengers. Before a Check Memo. could be issued calling upon the appellant to submit her explanation, she anticipated the charge, made a written representation to the Regional Transport Officer that the complaint that the bus was overloaded on 12th April, 1959, was not true. That Regional Transport Officer, North Arcot District, however issued the charge memo., dated 18th May, 1959 and called upon the appellant to explain. Finding the explanation unsatis-factory, he suspended the permit for a period of two weeks. This order was affirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on appeal. The appellant sought to challenge the propriety of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, but Ganapatia Pillai, J., declined to issue a rule nisi.

In this appeal Mrs. Perween Amiruddin confined her objection to a question of law. Her contention is that as the misconduct of the operator was discovered at Valavanur in the South Arcot District, it is only the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over that place, that could suspend the permit and not his counter-part in the North Arcot District, albeit it was the latter that issued the primary permit. Reliance is placed for this contention upon section 63 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act which says that

"The provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of counter-signatures of permits."

The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant in effect is that section 63 (3) confers a power upon the counter-signing authority to punish an erring operator by cancellation or suspension of the permit and, if that is so, the power to suspend cannot exist in some other authority as well. It is further contended that on a harmonious construction of section 60 and section 63 (3), the authority who could suspend the permit, will have to be ascertained with reference to the place at which the offence was committed. If the place where the offence of overloading was found was in the South Arcot District, it is contended it will be that authority having jurisdiction over that area which would have the power to suspend the permit. We are unable to agree with the contention. Section 60 provides for the cancellation and suspension of permits. Section 60 (1) (a) states:

"The Transport Authority which granted the permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit (a) on the breach of any condition.....contained in the permit.‘‘

There can be no doubt that overloading of passengers in a stage-carriage is a breach of the conditions of the permit. Section 63 relates to the issue of permits over inter-district routes. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region could be valid for another region, if the Regional Transport Authority of the latter region countersigns the permit. It follows from the provisions of the section that the original or primary permit is granted under section 60 and that section 63 (1) only provides for its validation by a counter-signature. Section 63 (3) only means that the power of suspension would apply even in regard to breach of a condition wit