Back
1951 Supreme(Nagpur) 58
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
R Kaushalendra Rao, Deo
NEW MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY, DRUG – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAIPUR AND OTHERS – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 225 of 1951
Decided on : 29-05-1951
M L Singhai, M N Phadke, T P Naik, Advocates
The power conferred by Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on the District Magistrate to restrict or prohibit the use of roads is limited to the interests of public safety or convenience or because of the nature of any road or bridge. The District Magistrate cannot constitute himself as a licensing authority to permit the use of the road by any particular vehicle according to his discretion.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 74 - NOTIFICATION RESTRICTING USE OF ROAD - VALIDITY - SEVERABILITY - TEMPORARY PERMITS - GRANT OF - JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a transport company, challenged the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent transport company to operate a bus service on a route where the petitioner had an exclusive permit. The petitioner contended that the notification issued by the District Magistrate under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, restricting the use of the road to one vehicle, was valid and that the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent was in contravention of the notification.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notification issued by the District Magistrate under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was invalid as it was beyond the scope of the power conferred by the section and was not severable. The court further held that the grant of temporary permits to the respondent was in contravention of the order of the appellate authority and was therefore illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification issued by the District Magistrate under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was valid? 2. Whether the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent was in contravention of the notification issued by the District Magistrate? 3. Whether the grant of temporary permits to the respondent was in contravention of the order of the appellate authority?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power conferred by Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on the District Magistrate to restrict or prohibit the use of roads is limited to the interests of public safety or convenience or because of the nature of any road or bridge. The District Magistrate cannot constitute himself as a licensing authority to permit the use of the road by any particular vehicle according to his discretion. 2. The notification issued by the District Magistrate was invalid as it imposed a sweeping prohibition on the use of stage carriages on the road without providing any exceptions or conditions. The notification was also not severable as the two parts of the notification were so interwoven that by omitting the invalid portion effect could not be given to the intention of the District Magistrate and the object of the notification would be frustrated. 3. The grant of temporary permits to the respondent was in contravention of the order of the appellate authority which had directed the Regional Transport Authority to refuse to grant any permit to the respondent over the road in question.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The Regional Transport Authority was directed to observe and give effect to the order of the appellate authority dated 23-1-1951 by cancelling the permit granted by it to the respondent transport company. The authority was further directed not to grant any further permit, even a temporary one, pending the disposal of the application dated 24-1-1951 for the grant of a regular permit. Lastly, the Regional Transport Authority was directed to decide that application in conformity with this decision.
1. The petitioner, the New Motor Transport Company, Drug, have moved this Court for a writ of certiorari, quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, passed on or about 16-2-1951, granting a permit to respondent No. 2, Gunderdehi Transport Company, Drug, in contravention of the order of the appellate authority in Appeal No. 156 of 1950, decided on 23-1-1951, and for a writ of mandamus to direct the Regional Transport Authority to carry out the order of the appellate authority by refusing to grant any permit to respondent No. 2 over the road in question. Respondent No. 2 has only applied (Miscellaneous Petition No. 40 of 1951) for a writ quashing the aforesaid order of the appellate authority on the ground that it was without jurisdiction. This order will dispose of both the petitions.
2. Under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the District Magistrate, Drug, published a notification dated the 5th August 1940 in the Official Gazette ordering that all unmetalled roads in the district would be closed for plying passenger service vehicles from 16th June to 30th September every year and that the following unmetalled roads were open for plying passenger service vehicles to the number mentioned against each from 1st October to 15th June each year.
4. Gunderdehi-Arjunda-1 unladen weight between 11/2 and 2 tons.
The order superseded all previous orders on the subject.
3. The petitioner is running one bus service on this route (Gunderdehi-Arjunda) since about 1940.
4. On the application of the respondent No. 2 the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, passed an order on 31-8-1950, granting it one permit. The permit was accordingly issued for four months operative from 13-9-1950 to 12-1-1951. This order was passed after following the procedure prescribed by Section 57 for a regular permit'', i.e., for a permit other than a temporary permit under Section 62. The order runs thus:
''The permit is sanctioned accordingly subject to the provision that their timings will be regulated in such a way that the timings from Gunderdehi to Drug fall after the timings of the existing two operators, viz., New Motor Transport Company and the Raipur Transport Company, Limited, Raipur. The sanction is subject to the notification by the Deputy Commissioner, Drug, about permission for operation of 2 buses between Arjunda and Gunderdehi, which is a second class portion, as required under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.''
5. Against this order the petitioner appealed to the appellate authority which passed the following order:
''In this case the District Magistrate had by notification issued under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act restricted the route Gunderdehi-Arjunda for operation by only one vehicle. The Regional Transport Authority in its order dated 31-8-1950 has granted a permit to the respondent Shri Gunderdehi Transport Company for operation of a second vehicle on this route which cannot be operated in view of the District Magistrates notification under Section 74 referred to above. The Regional Transport Authority should not therefore have granted a permit unless the District Magistrates notification was modified so as to permit the operation of a second vehicle on that route. It has been argued that the District Magistrate has granted permission to the respondent to operate his service vide his Order No. Q/R, dated 28-11-1950. There is nothing to show that this order has been published in the Central Provinces Gazette or that it modifies the previous notification dated 5-8-1940, and unless this is done the permission granted by the District Magistrate on 28-11-1950 is illegal. In fact, therefore, the permit cannot be operated and is of no avail to the respondent, which is therefore cancelled with immediate effect.''
6. On 24-1-1951 the respondent No. 2 applied for a ''regular'' permit over the same route. It is common ground that procedure under Section 57 is to be followed, th
