Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Misc. Petn. No. 76 of 1966

Attorney(S)

Y.S.Dharmadhikari
K.A.Chitale V.S.Dabir

Judges

P.V Dixit, C.J
K.L Pandey, J.

Acts

Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act
Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,
Section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Section 62 (d)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges two orders: (i) an order dated 3 January 1966 of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Jabalpur, granting the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (respondent 3) a temporary stage carriage permit for the Jabalpur–Raipur route until 22 March 1966; and (ii) an order dated 27 January 1966 of the RTA, Raipur, countersigning that permit subject to modifications in departure time from Raipur and an increased halt at Simga.

The route in question was included in Scheme No. 33, approved and notified under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and scheduled to commence regular operations from 23 March 1966. Despite this, respondent 3 applied for a temporary permit. The RTA, Jabalpur, passed a brief, unpublished order on 3 January 1966 granting a temporary permit until 22 March 1966 and forwarded the order with provisional timings to the RTA, Raipur, on condition of countersignature by Raipur and adjustment of timings if objected to by existing operators.

Respondent 3 applied to the RTA, Raipur, for countersignature on 5 January 1966. The petitioner, an existing operator serving a major portion of the route, objected to the countersignature on several grounds. The RTA, Raipur, fixed 25 January 1966 for hearing the objection (notice dated 13 January 1966). The RTA, Raipur, was absent from Raipur on 25 January; the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard, and on 27 January 1966 the RTA, Raipur, passed the countersigning order with specified timing modifications.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether there was a "particular temporary need" justifying a temporary permit under Clause (c) of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, given that the route was covered by an approved and notified permanent scheme (Scheme No. 33) commencing on 23 March 1966.
Whether the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, complied with the procedure prescribed by Section 63(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act when countersigning the permit.
Whether the existence of a scheme approved and notified under Section 68D of the Act precluded respondent 3 from applying for or obtaining any stage carriage permit for the route.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

There was no particular temporary need justifying a temporary permit; the grant was not covered by the rule in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur (AIR 1966 SC 156).
The RTA, Raipur, countersigned the permit without following the procedure required by Section 63(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Because the route was already covered by a scheme approved and notified under Section 68-D, respondent 3 was not entitled to apply for or obtain a stage carriage permit for that route.

Respondent's Arguments (as advanced by Shri K.A. Chitale)

The temporary stage carriage permit was justified under Clause (c) of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act as being granted to meet a particular temporary need.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in AIR 1966 SC 156 as authority that a temporary need can coexist with a permanent need.
Specifically, Shri Chitale contended that inclusion of the route in an approved scheme and the implied duty to provide services quickly indicated the existence of a temporary need that justified the temporary permit.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, AIR 1966 SC 156	Holds that Section 62(c) permits granting temporary permits to meet a "particular temporary need" and that a temporary need may coexist with a permanent need; examples include shortages after cancellation of permits or interim needs pending regular operations.	The court analyzed this precedent and concluded it did not assist respondent 3. The court accepted the principle that temporary and permanent needs may coexist but found the RTA, Jabalpur, did not apply its mind to the existence of a particular temporary need prior to 23 March 1966. The respondent's reliance on the precedent was therefore rejected as inapposite to the facts.
Jairam Dass v. Regional Transport Authority, ILR (1956) 6 Raj 1053 (AIR 1957 Raj 162)	Example where a temporary permit was justified because existing services were insufficient and a temporary increase in buses was necessary until regular services were introduced.	Cited by the court as an example of circumstances where a particular temporary need was properly found. The court used it to illustrate the limited scope of when temporary permits are appropriate and to contrast those factual situations with the present case.
Chandi Prosad v. Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati, ILR (1952) 4 Assam 9 (AIR 1953 Assam 74)	Example where permits had expired and it was necessary to provide for the interregnum until commencement of a nationalisation scheme; justified a temporary permit.	Also cited as an example of legitimate temporary need (interregnum after expiry of permits). The court relied on such examples to explain the proper, narrower meaning of "a particular temporary need" and to distinguish them from the facts of the present case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court allowed the petition on the first ground only and therefore did not decide the other two grounds. The central analytical steps were:

The court examined the Supreme Court's decision in AIR 1966 SC 156, acknowledging the rule there that a temporary need under Section 62(c) can coexist with a permanent need, and that temporary permits may be granted in clearly identifiable situations (for example, shortage following cancellation of permits, insufficiency of existing services, or interim gaps pending commencement of a scheme).
The court then compared the factual matrix of those illustrative cases to the facts here. It concluded that in each cited case transport services had already been in operation and the temporary need arose from an increase of traffic, cancellation, or expiry of permits leading to an immediate shortage or interregnum — factual scenarios that manifest a particular temporary need.
The court found that the RTA, Jabalpur's order of 3 January 1966 did not show that it applied its mind to whether there was any such particular temporary need before 23 March 1966. The order was brief and not published, and the explanatory rationale required by the principle in AIR 1966 SC 156 was absent.
The court addressed the respondent's contention (as advanced by Shri Chitale) that inclusion of the route in an approved scheme and an implied duty to satisfy it quickly created the requisite particular temporary need. The court rejected this contention, holding that it would impermissibly broaden the meaning of "a particular temporary need" and could invite abuse (nepotism and favouritism) if any permanent need inherent in an approved scheme were treated as automatically generating an immediate temporary need.
On this basis the court concluded there was no particular temporary need in the circumstances of the present case and that the RTA, Jabalpur, could not lawfully have granted a temporary permit to respondent 3. Because the petition succeeded on this first ground, the court did not express any opinion on the other grounds (procedure under Section 63(3) or the effect of Section 68-D coverage).

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 3 January 1966 (RTA, Jabalpur) and 27 January 1966 (RTA, Raipur) are quashed.

Consequential directions and immediate implications as stated by the court:

The respondent 3 shall bear its own costs.
The respondent 3 shall pay the costs incurred by the petitioner; the security amount paid by the petitioner shall be refunded.
The hearing fee to be refunded to the petitioner is specified as Rs. 100.

The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal principle beyond applying the existing Supreme Court authority; it confines its decision to the facts of the case and to a determination that the particular temporary-need requirement (as interpreted in AIR 1966 SC 156 and the illustrative cases) was not satisfied here.

Show full summary ...

Raipur Transport Co. Private Ltd. Raipur v. Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur And Others

1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against-

(i) an order dated 3 January 1966 whereby the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, granted to the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (respondent 3) a temporary stage carriage permit for the Jabalpur-Raipur route till 22 March 1966;

and

(ii) an order dated 27 January 1966 by which the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, countersigned it subject to modification in regard to the time of departure from Raipur.

2. The facts which gave rise to this petition may be shortly stated. The Jabalpur-Raipur route is covered by the Scheme No 33 which, having been duly approved and notified under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, will commence to operate from 23 March 1966 Even so, the respondent 3 applied for a temporary stage carriage permit for the route. On 3 January 1966, the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, passed on that application, which was not published, the following brief order:

"The route is included in nationalisation scheme No. 33 to commence from 23rd March. It is finalised scheme. There is also a need to start this service to facilitate direct connection between Raipur-Jabalpur. A temporary permit till 22nd March 1966 be granted to Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation accordingly"

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Jabalpur, transmitted a copy of this order with provisional timings to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, and stated in the forwarding note that the inter-regional permit was valid subject to-

(i) counter-signature by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, and

(ii) proper adjustment of timings, if objected to by the existing operators. Thereupon, on 5 January 1966, the respondent 3 applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, for grant of counter-signature. On coming to know of that application, the petitioner, who is an existing operator providing transport services on the major portion of the route, objected to the grant of counter-signature on several grounds The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, fixed 25 January 1966 for hearing the objection and intimated to the petitioner accordingly by a notice dated 13 January, 1966.

The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, was however absent from Raipur on 25 January 1966 and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to be heard in support of its objection. On 27 January 1966, that Authority passed the following order:

"This permit is countersigned subject to the modification in the time of departure from Raipur at 9.30 a.m. and increasing the halt at Simga by five minutes. The other timings will be affected upto Bemetara and the Regional Transport Authority. Jabalpur, may fix suitable modifications in the timings of the onward journey upto Jabalpur."

3. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the two Regional Transport Authorities on the following grounds:

(i) There was in this case no particular temporary need. It is not covered by the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh, State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, AIR 1966 SC 156.

(ii) The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, counter-signed the permit without following the procedure prescribed by Section 63(3) of the Act.

(iii) Since there was a scheme approved and notified under Section 68-D of the Act which covered this particular route, the respondent 3 was not entitled to apply for, or obtain, any stage carriage permit for the route

4. Shri K.A. Chitale, who appeared for the respondent 3, endeavoured to meet each of the three grounds urged in support of this petition. Having heard the counsel, we have reached the conclusion that this petition must be allowed on the first ground. The temporary stage carriage permit was sought to be justified on the ground that it was granted to meet a particular temporary need and was thus covered by Clause (c) of Section 62 of the Act. For the view that there was, in the circumstances of this case, a particular temporary need, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 156 (supra).

In our opinion, that case lends no assistance to the respondent 3. The Supreme Court observed there as follows:

"On behalf of the appellant it was contended, in the first place, that there was a particular temporary need for the provision of transport facilities and the High Court was erroneous in taking the view that whenever there was a permanent need, there could be no temporary need and so temporary permit could not be granted under Section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In our opinion, the argument put forward by the learned Solicitor-General on behalf of the appellant is well founded and must be accepted as correct. It appears from the order of the Regional Transport Authority that after the regular permit granted to respondent No. 3 was cancelled there was a shortage of necessary number of transport vehicles on the route and the Regional Transport Authority thought it fit to provide for this temporary need until regular operations were introduced and regular permits were granted after following the procedure prescribed under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act states that the Regional Transport Authority may grant a temporary permit to meet a particular temporary need and we see no reason why this clause should be given any special of restricted meaning. There is no antithesis between a particular temporary need and a permanent need and it is manifest that these two kinds of need may co-exist on a particular route. If, therefore, the Regional Transport Authority considered that, in the circumstances of the case, there was a particular temporary need, and granted a temporary permit to the appellant, the action of the Regional Transport Authority cannot be challenged as legally invalid. Reference may be made in this connection to Section 62 (d) which contemplates that temporary permits may be granted to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. This sub-section, therefore, contemplates that there may exist a temporary need for transport facilities on a particular route even in case of permanent need for such facilities. We are accordingly of opinion that the Regional Transport Authority was right as a matter of law in granting a temporary permit to the appellant under Section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the circumstances of this case and the view expressed by the High Court is not correct."

Contrary to the view taken earlier by various High Courts, including this Court, the rule laid down by the Supreme Court is that there may exist a temporary need for transport facilities on a particular route even in case of permanent need for such facilities. The Supreme Court has indicated with reference to the facts of the case it was considering and of two other cases which it approved, how such temporary need may arise. In the case before the Supreme Court, there was, consequent upon cancellation of a regular permit, a shortage of the necessary number of transport vehicles and this temporary need had to be provided until regular operations could be introduced in the usual manner. In Jairam Dass v. Regional Transport Authority, ILR (1956) 6 Raj 1053 :(AIR 1957 Raj 162), the existing transport services were insufficient to meet the traffic and having decided to increase the number of regular buses plying on the route, the Regional Transport Authority granted a temporary permit to meet this need till the introduction of regular services after going through the necessary formalities. In Chandi Prosad v. Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati ILR (1952) 4 Assam 9: (AIR 1953 Assam 74), the petitioner's permits had expired, there was time for commencement of the scheme of nationalisation and it was necessary to provide for the interregnum. It will be readily seen that, in all these cases, transport services had been in operation on the route and the need was felt either because of increase of traffic or because of shortage or want of necessary number of vehicles in consequence of cancellation or expiry of permits.

In AIR 1966 SC 156 (supra) the Supreme Court has not laid down that wherever there is a permanent need, then, without more, ii must be presumed that a particular temporary need also exists. The Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, which passed the impugned order dated 3 January 1966, did not apply its mind to the question whether, prior to 23 March 1966, there was any temporary need to provide for the route transport facilities in the sense accepted by the Supreme Court.

In regard to this, all that Shri Chitale was able to say before us was that the need was indicated by the fact that the route was included in an approved scheme and that since it had to be provided for and satisfied as quickly as possible, it was a particular temporary need. We are unable to accept this contention which implies that, whenever there is a permanent need, it must be presumed, because of the implied duty to satisfy it as quickly as possible, that a temporary need also simultaneously comes into existence and the Regional Trans port Authority will be justified in every such case to begin with the grant of a temporary permit. We are unable to extend the meaning of the expression "a particular temporary need" beyond what has been indicated by the Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 156 (supra), particularly when we are aware that it easily lends itself to abuse in the form of promotion of nepotism and favouritism. In our opinion, there was, in the facts and circumstances of the case before us, no particular temporary need and the Regional Transport Authority. Jabalpur, could not have granted a temporary permit to the respondent 3.

5. In the view we have taken of the first ground, it is not necessary for us to express our opinion on the other grounds urged before us. The petition succeeds on the first ground and is allowed. The orders dated 3 January 1966 and 27 January 1966 are, quashed. The respondent 3 shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the petitioner to whom the security amount shall be refunded- Hearing fee Rs. 100/-.

Raipur Transport Co. Private Ltd. Raipur v. Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments (as advanced by Shri K.A. Chitale)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Raipur Transport Co. Private Ltd. Raipur v. Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur And Others

Comments