Back
1963 Supreme(MP) 22
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 132 Of 1962
Decided On : 02/11/1963
R.K.Tankha, Y.S.DHARMADHIKARI
Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - S. 48 - C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles Rules - R. 50 (b) - application for a longer rout - cannot be granted for a curtailed route - modification mentioned in section 48 (1) - meaning of - splitting of route is not legal.
It is true that under sub section (1) of section 48 and rule 50 (b), the Regional Transport Authority has the power to grant a permit "with such modifications as it deems fir” and to modify the terms of the application for the grant of a permit. But this power of modification cannot be used so as to circumvent the express prohibition contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 48 and to treat an application made for the grant of a permit for a particular route as an application for grant of permit for a curtailed route or for routes spitted out of the route for which the application has been made. So to do is to ignore the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 48 and the entire procedure contained in the Motor Vehicles Act with regard to the applications for, and grant of permits. [Para 4
(2) Jurisdiction - no jurisdiction initially cannot be assumed by amending the plaint or application - jurisdiction of the appellate authority.
A Court or an authority not possessing jurisdiction initially cannot by an amendment of plaint or application create jurisdiction in itself. AIR 1953 Nag. 273 relied on. [Para 4
It is elementary that the functions and powers of the appellate or reviewing authority are only those which the authority passing the order sought to be appealed from or reviewed would have itself exercised. [Para 4
( 1 ) IN this application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal, the prayer made is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing a decision of the State Transport appellate Authority granting in appeal permit for Jabalpur--Maibar route to the respondent No. 2. Laxminarayan.
( 2 ) THE said respondent had applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, for the grant of a permit in respect of Jabalpur--Rewa route. That application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that it was not competent to entertain it as the major portion of the route lay in Rewa region. Thereupon Laxminarayan appealed to the State Transport Appellate Authority contending that the, Regional Transport Authority should not have rejected his application outright but that it should have considered the question of the grant of a permit to him for the curtailed route, namely, from Jabalpur to Maihar. The petitioner opposed the grant of a permit for the curtailed route saying that the respondent No. 2 had never applied for a permit for the route and that neither the regional Transport Authority nor the Appellate Authority had any jurisdiction to grant a permit in respect of any route for which no application had ever been made. The Appellate Authority overruled this objection and taking the view that under Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Regional Transport Authority had the power to grant permit "in a curtailed form" and that it had also the power under Rule 50 (b) of the C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules to modify the terms of application for the grant of a permit, held that when the respondent No. 2 made a prayer for the grant of a permit for Jabalpur--Maihar route his application would be deemed to be one for that route and that as there was scope on the route the respondent was entitled to gel a permit for that route.
( 3 ) BEFORE us, Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation, urged that the grant of a permit to the respondent-Laxminarayan for jabalpur Maihar route when he had only applied for grant of permit for Jabalpur--Rewa route was contrary to the express bar contained in the proviso to Section 48 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act; that under Section 48 (1) or under Rule 50 (b)neither the Regional Transport Authority nor the Appellate Authority could modify the application for the grant of a permit for Jabalpur--Rewa route so as to deem it as one for Jabalpur--Maihar route; and that as the Regional Transport Authority, jabalpur. had no jurisdiction to entertain the said respondent's application for the grant of permit for Jabalpur--Rewa route it could not be amended by the Appellate authority so as to confer jurisdiction on the Regional Transport Authority and thus on itself to entertain the application.
( 4 ) IN our judgment, this contention must be given effect to. It is not disputed that laxminarayan had only applied for the grant of a permit in respect of Jabalpur rewa route. The respondent Laxminarayan did not also question before the appellate authority the correctness of the decision of the Regional Transport authority holding that as the major portion of the route lay in Rewa region it was not competent to entertain the application for the grant of a permit for Jabalpur--Rewa route. Now, Section 48 (1) expressly says that no permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. That sub-section runs as follows-
"48. (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 47, a Regional Transport authority may, on an application made to it under Section 46, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications us it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit: Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application"
The proviso to Sub-section (1) thus in plain te
