Back
1971 Supreme(All) 173
Allahbad High Court
K.N.SINGH
Turabuddin Haji Niaz Ahmad - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut - Respondent
Decided On : 08/10/1971
L.P. Naithani, for Petitioners; Standing Counsel, for Respondents.
Temporary permits cannot be granted when applications for permanent permits are pending.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Temporary Permits - Grant of - Conditions Precedent - Applications for Permanent Permits Pending - Temporary Permits Cannot be Granted - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, S. 62(1), Proviso.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners are existing operators on Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandla route, which is completely overlapped by Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kurthal route. Petitioner No.3 claims to be an applicant for a permanent stage carriage permit on the route in question. Regional Transport Authority by its resolution No.53 dated April 5/6, 1971 decided to open Muzaffarnagar-Budhana Kurthal route and classified the same as 'A' class route. Under S.47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act the regional transport authority fixed the strength of the route at 10. Although the strength was fixed and the route was classified, the Regional Transport Authority has not so far invited any applications for the grant of permits on the route in question. A number of applications were received by the R.T.A. for the grant of temporary permits on the route in question. The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority in exercise of the delegated powers of the Regional Transport Authority granted ten temporary permits on the route in question, to respondents Nos.3 to 12 of the petition. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the grant of temporary permits to the respondents on a number of grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the applications made suo motu for grant of permits without there being any vacancy on the route, are no applications under Section 46 of the Act within the meaning of the first proviso of Section 62 of the Act. The court further held that the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to grant temporary permits and that the delegation of powers to him was valid. The court also held that the grant of temporary permits was justified as there was a temporary need to meet the requirement of the travelling public.
Issues: 1. Whether temporary permits can be granted when applications for permanent permits are pending? 2. Whether the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to grant temporary permits? 3. Whether the delegation of powers to the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority was valid? 4. Whether the grant of temporary permits was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 places a restriction on the power of the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits. According to this proviso the Regional Transport Authority in no case is authorised to grant temporary permits in respect of any route or area in respect of which applications for the grant of permanent stage carriage permits are pending under Section 46 of the Act. During the pendency of such applications, no temporary permit can legally be granted. 2. Sub-section (5) of Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contemplates rules for the delegation of powers and functions by the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority to such authority or person as may be prescribed by the rule. Rule 44-A framed under Section 68 of the Act authorises the Regional Transport Authority to delegate its powers and functions by general or special resolution recorded in its proceedings subject to such conditions as may be specified in the resolution to its Secretary or to Assistant Regional Transport Officer of the region concerned, all or any of its powers under Section 62 of the Act regarding the grant of temporary permits. 3. The grant of temporary permits was justified as there was a temporary need to meet the requirement of the travelling public.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs.
2. Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandla route is fifty kilometers in length. There are 35 stage carriages plying on this route. The town of Kurthal is situated at a distance of about eight kilometers from Budhana and, therefore, a stage carriage operating from Muzaffarnagar to Kurthal overlaps the entire route from the Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandla route. The Regional Transport Authority by its resolution No.53 dated April 5/6, 1971 decided to open Muzaffarnagar-Budhana Kurthal route and classified the same as 'A' class route. Under S.47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act the regional transport authority fixed the strength of the route at 10. Although the strength was fixed and the route was classified, the Regional Transport Authority has not so far invited any applications for the grant of permits on the route in question. A number of applications were received by the R.T.A. for the grant of temporary permits on the route in question. The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority in exercise of the delegated powers of the Regional Transport Authority granted ten temporary permits on the route in question, to respondents Nos.3 to 12 to the petition. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the grant of temporary permits to the respondents on a number of grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since applications for the grant of permanent permits on the route in question were pending, no temporary permit could legally be granted under Section 62 of the Act. The delegation of its power to its Secretary to grant temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority is invalid and, in any case, the order granting temporary permits is not of the Secretary, but of the Chairman, who had no authority in law to grant any temporary permit.
4. Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act confers power on the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits. The first proviso to sub-sec.(1) of S.62 places a restriction on the power of the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits. According to this proviso the Regional Transport Authority in no case is authorised to grant temporary permits in respect of any route or area in respect of which applications for the grant of permanent stage carriage permits are pending under Section 46 of the Act. During the pendency of such applications, no temporary permit can legally be granted. The question that falls for consideration in the present case is whether on the 5th April, 1971 when the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority granted temporary permits, was any application pending for the grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route in question as contemplated by the first proviso to sub-section (1) of S.62 of the Act.
5. In 1968 a number of applications were made suo motu by various persons including petitioner No.3 for the grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route in question although the route was not opened or accepted and no strength had been fixed. The Regional Transport Authority published those applications in the gazette dated 12th October, 1968 and invited objections. On 29th October, 1968 petitioners Nos.1 and 2 who are the existing operators on the Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandla route filed objections. Their main ground of objection was that since the Regional Transport Authority had not opened any route, nor it had fixed the strength on the route as
