Back
Allahbad High Court
G.D.SAHGAL
Masi Ullah - Appellant
Versus
State Tribunal Appellate U. P. - Respondent
Decided On : 10/21/1965
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 47(1), 48(3) - RENEWAL OF PERMIT - CONDITION AS TO YEAR OF MANUFACTURE OF VEHICLE - NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners held stage carriage permits on certain routes. Upon renewal of their permits, the Regional Transport Authority imposed a condition that they should place on the routes buses of a specified year of manufacture or later. The petitioners challenged this condition, arguing that it was not authorized by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the condition imposed by the Regional Transport Authority was not authorized by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court found that the Act did not specifically provide for the imposition of a condition as to the year of manufacture of the vehicle. The court also found that the condition did not amount to the prescribing of a "specified description" of stage carriage, as required by section 48(3) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the Regional Transport Authority had the authority to impose a condition as to the year of manufacture of the vehicle upon renewal of a stage carriage permit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Regional Transport Authority did not have the authority to impose a condition as to the year of manufacture of the vehicle upon renewal of a stage carriage permit. The court found that the Act did not specifically provide for the imposition of such a condition. The court also found that the condition did not amount to the prescribing of a "specified description" of stage carriage, as required by section 48(3) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned orders of the Regional Transport Authority.
2. The petitioner in writ petition No. 581 of 1963 held a stage carriage permit on the Lucknow-Tikaitganj Babaganj route. He applied for the renewal of his permit and by a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, opposite party No. 2 dated the 7th of March, 1962, it was allowed to be renewed for a further period of three years on condition that the petitioner shall place 1952 model or later model on the route.
3. The petitioner of writ petition No. 582 of 1963 also was the holder of a permanent stage carriage permit on the Lucknow-Mall route. In his case also at the time of the renewal of the permit a condition was imposed on the 7th of March, 1962 by the opposite party No. 2, the Regional Transport Authority, that he shall place 1960 or later model on the route.
4. Both the petitioners made appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, opposite party No. 1. But their appeals were dismissed. It is in these circumstances that these two writ petitions have been filed.
5. The prayer is for the issue of a writ of certiorari for the quashing of the orders of opposite party No. 1 dated the 21st of August, 1963, dismissing the appeal and of opposite party No. 2 dated the 7th of March, 1962, granting permit imposing condition aforesaid. In writ petition No. 581 of 1963 there is also a prayer to the effect that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the Regional Transport Authority to allow the petitioner to operate his bus so long as it was found fit as required by the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. In writ petition No. 582 of 1963 the prayer is that the opposite party No. 2 be commanded to allow the petitioner to ply his vehicle. Apart from these two prayers there is a general prayer for the grant of such writ, direction or order which the Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case to pass.
6. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 did not justify the imposing of the condition of the type that has been imposed in the two cases requiring the petitioner in writ petition No. 581 of 1963 to place on the route a bus of 1952 or later model and in the case of writ petition No. 582 of 1963 requiring the petitioner to place on the route bus of 1960 or later model.
7. In order to appreciate the case of the petitioners certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 have to be looked into. Sub-section (2) of section 58 in so far as it is relevant for our purposes reads :
"58 (2) A permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. "Section 47(1) Provides:
"47(1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely:
(a) the interests of the public generally;
(b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken;
(c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be served;
(d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service;
(e) the operation by the applicant of other transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending;
(f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area; ..........................''
8. Sub-section (3) of section 48 in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows:
"48(3) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a service of stage carriages of a 'specified description' (the underlining (here into ' ') is mine) or for one or more particular stage carriages, and may, subject to any rules that may be made un
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
