SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(MP) 284

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. N. SINGH, R. C. LAHOTI
M.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GWALIOR - Appellant
Versus
NIRMAL KUMAR CHORDIA - Respondents
M. P. 1017 Of 1988
Decided On : 11/17/1988

Advocates Appeared:
D.V.Nigudkar, J.P.Gupta

The grant of a permit for a route not contemplated under a reciprocal agreement between States is illegal and without jurisdiction.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT - GRANT OF PERMIT - JURISDICTION - RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT - VALIDITY OF PERMIT - SCHEME - EFFECT OF SCHEME - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 226 (2).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a State Undertaking, challenged the grant of a permit to the respondent for operating a stage carriage on an inter-State route, on the ground that the permit was issued without jurisdiction and in violation of the reciprocal transport agreement between the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, acted illegally and without jurisdiction in granting a permit for a route not contemplated under the agreement. The Court also held that the permit could not be validly countersigned by the Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gwalior.

Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, had jurisdiction to grant a permit for a route not contemplated under the reciprocal agreement between the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh? 2. Whether the permit could be validly countersigned by the Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gwalior? 3. Whether the permit was in violation of the Schemes notified under Sections 68C and 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, did not have jurisdiction to grant a permit for a route not contemplated under the reciprocal agreement between the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. The Court relied on the provisions of Sections 45, 46, 47 (1-H), 48, 57 and 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and held that an application for a permit to operate a vehicle on an inter-State route can be dealt with in only two ways - in accordance with the provisions of the reciprocal Agreement contemplated under Section 63 (3-A) when such an Agreement is in vogue concerning the "route" applied for and in the absence of such an agreement for the ''route" applied for, in accordance with the provisions of Section 57. 2. The Court held that the permit could not be validly countersigned by the Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gwalior, as the permit was issued without jurisdiction. 3. The Court held that the permit was in violation of the Schemes notified under Sections 68C and 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court held that the Schemes affected the entitlement purportedly created under the impugned permit for a portion of the route created thereunder.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, and the impugned permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kota. The Court also quashed the counter-signature appended to the impugned permit by the Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gwalior.

T. N. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is a "state Undertaking" within the meaning of S. 68-A (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short; the 'act'. On a permit being granted on 6-4-1988 for a period of five years, with effect from 10-4-1988, to Nirmal Kumar Chordia, by Regional Transport Authority, Kota, as per Annexure-P/5 (a), and the same being countersigned as per Annexure-P/9 by the Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh, on 7-4-1988, those have been impugned on the writ side, in this Court, by the petitioner, as illegal and without jurisdiction. The permit aforesaid is for an inter-State route, Raipur-Indore, via Soyat, Susner, Agar, Ghosla, Ujjain, with corridor restriction as to picking up or setting down passengers between the portion Raipur-Chavli.

( 2 ) THE permit, it may be noted,was issued on a direction made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan vide order passed as per Annexure-P/2, on 4-2-1988. However, as per clause 15 of the permit, the same was made conditional to counter-signature of the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh Gwalior. What is also undisputed is that respondent Chordia had made an application for permit to operate on the route Indore-Jaipur via Kota, staking his claim on the basis of the reciprocal transport agreement (hereafter "agreement), dt. 6-5-1975 (sic) between the States" of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. But, that was rejected on 26-7-1987 byR. T. A. , Kota, as per Annexure- P/1. The Appellate Tribunal, on being approached, took the view that there was a vacancy in the inter-statal route Jaipur-Indore under the agreement and that although a portion of the route (from Jaipur to Raipur) was covered by a Scheme made under S. 68d (3) of the Act, the prayer of the petitioner for curtailing that portion could be allowed and a permit could be granted for Raipur-Indore route. It was also held that R. T. A. , Kota, was wrong in taking the view that the entire route from Raipur to Indore was within the State of Madhya Pradesh inasmuch as Raipur was within the State of Rajasthan and the M. P. border was 8 K. M. S. away from Raipur. Petitioner's learned counsel has, accordingly challenged mainly the order dt. 4-2-1988 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

( 3 ) ON several grounds, the entitlement of respondent Chordia to operate his vehicle on the concerned route under the permit and under the counter-signature, aforesaid, is challenged. We propose to deal separately with each of the contentions raised by Shri Nigudkar, appearing for the petitioner. The first question to be determined is, whether in terms of the agreement above referred, the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur could grant respondent's prayer or R. T. A. , Kota, could issue the permit pursuant to the direction made in appeal. We propose to extract, therefore, relevant portions from the said agreement, a copy of which respondent Chordia has filed with his return as Annexure-P/1.

( 4 ) IN the preamble of the agreement is stated, inter alia, that "the number and routes of inter-Statal permits agreed to in respect of stage carriages. . . . . . . . . in accordance with this agreement may be reviewed periodically at the instance of either State". (Emphasis added ). Clause 4 states, inter alia, "routes recommended for countersignature shall be incorporated in the original permits by the authorities granting the permits before recommending them for countersignature. " (Emphasis added ). Clause 11 deals specifically with "stage carriages" of which we extract, below the relevant portion on which Shri Nigudkar has placed implicit reliance :" (A) Reciprocal arrangements in regard to the operation of stage carriages on inter-State routes between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan shall be according to the details contained in Appendix 'a'. (b) The number of trips allocated for each State on each inter-State route shall be fixed as far as possible according to the mileage


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top