Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Ratanlal v. The Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner And Others

Rajasthan High Court
Feb 27, 1969
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
CASE NO.

Civil Writ Petn. No. 209 of 1969

Attorney(S)

B.L.Maheshwari

JUDGES

Mr. Guman Singh

ACTS

provisions of Section 44(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter to be referred as the Act,

Section 44 sub-section (3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act the State Transport Authority Rajasthan

prescribed..4. Sub-section (3) of Section 44

clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 44

sub-section (3) of Section 44

Section 44 sub-section (3)

See more information ... Less ...
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
Smart Summary (Beta)

Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition challenged the validity of a resolution of the State Transport Authority, Jaipur (referred to as Annexure-8). The resolution, quoted in the opinion, declared that under Section 44(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act the State Transport Authority (STA) would, with effect from publication in the Official Gazette, grant all types of permits, renewals and transfers on inter-regional and inter-state routes, and that in respect of those routes the STA would perform duties previously performed by Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs). The resolution also stated that all types of permits on inter-state routes shall be countersigned by the STA.

Procedurally, the matter proceeded as a writ petition challenging the legality of that resolution. The court heard submissions and delivered reasons. The petition was dismissed in limine.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, under Section 44(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Transport Authority is empowered to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority in relation to an inter-state route (i.e., a route lying in regions of different States).
  2. Whether the terms and scheme of Sections 44(3), 45 and 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act restrict the STA's power to assume RTA functions to routes lying only within the same State.
  3. Whether permitting the STA to act as a Regional Transport Authority in respect of such routes would deprive an applicant of the statutory revisional remedy under Section 64-A of the Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that Annexure-8 (the STA resolution) was invalid because Section 44(3) did not permit the State Transport Authority to take upon itself the functions of a Regional Transport Authority in relation to inter-state routes.
  • It was submitted that, under Section 64-A, the STA was created as a revisional authority and, if the STA itself performs the duties of the RTA, an applicant would lose the statutory remedy of revision.
  • A further submission asserted that sub-section (3) of Section 44 does not deal with inter-state routes and therefore the STA could only take over RTA functions in relation to routes lying in two regions of the same State. The petitioner relied on distinctions perceived in Sections 45 and 63.
  • It was additionally argued that the word "any" before "route" in clause (b) of Section 44(3) was significant and suggested that the power was meant to be applied only in particular or limited situations.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any specific arguments advanced by the State or other respondents in opposition; the reported submissions are those advanced by the petitioner's learned counsel.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded by textual and contextual interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act provisions relied on by the parties, with particular focus on Section 44(3) and related provisions:

  1. Quotation and textual parsing of Section 44(3): The court reproduced sub-section (3) and identified clauses (a)–(d). It emphasized that the STA must give effect to directions under Section 43 and, subject to those directions and other provisions of the Act, exercise the powers in clauses (a) to (d).
  2. Breakdown of clause (b): The court parsed clause (b) into three contingencies in which the STA may perform the duties of an RTA:
    • When there is no Regional Transport Authority functioning in a region (STA fills the vacuum).
    • When the STA, if it thinks fit, performs RTA duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions.
    • When the STA is required by a Regional Transport Authority to perform those duties for a route common to two or more regions.
  3. On the revisional-remedy contention (Section 64-A): The court rejected the petitioner's contention that allowing the STA to act as RTA would improperly deprive applicants of revisional remedy. The court reasoned that Section 64-A operates where RTA decisions are subject to revision; where a superior authority (the STA) deals with the matter in the first instance, the need for a revisional remedy is diminished and there is no objection to having the matter decided by a superior authority in the first instance.
  4. Interpretation of Sections 45 and the meaning of "regions": The court examined Section 45 (procedures for filing applications for permits) and observed that when the Legislature intended to confine provisions to regions within the same State, it did so expressly. The court concluded that Section 44(3) does not confine the term "region" to regions lying only within the same State; consequently, clause (b) can encompass routes common to regions that lie in different States (i.e., inter-state routes).
  5. Analysis of Section 63 (countersigning): The court cited Section 63, which provides that permits granted in one State are not valid in another unless countersigned by that other State's STA or the relevant RTA. The court took the inclusion of both the State Transport Authority and the relevant Regional Transport Authority in Section 63 as indicative that the Legislature contemplated that an STA could discharge functions of an RTA in relation to inter-state routes.
  6. On the significance of "any": The court addressed the submission that the word "any" before "route" limited the power to specific circumstances. The court disagreed, holding that "any" is descriptive of "route" and intended to embrace all kinds of routes which run into two or more regions, not to impose a narrow limitation.
  7. Conclusion of analysis: The court found that the resolution (Annexure-8), which placed responsibility for permits on the STA for inter-regional and inter-state routes and required countersignature for inter-state permits by the STA, did not conflict with the scheme of Sections 44, 45 or 63 of the Act.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition challenging the validity of the State Transport Authority's resolution (Annexure-8) was dismissed. The court explicitly rejected the petitioner's contentions and upheld the validity of the resolution insofar as it authorised the State Transport Authority to grant permits and perform duties in respect of routes common to two or more regions, including inter-state routes, subject to the Act.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties: The resolution of the State Transport Authority stands; the STA is entitled to grant permits, renewals and transfers and to perform duties previously performed by Regional Transport Authorities in relation to routes common to two or more regions, including routes lying in different States, and to require countersignature for inter-state permits as provided by the Act.
  • Remedies and procedure: The court held that allowing the STA to act in this capacity does not improperly deprive applicants of reconsideration under Section 64-A where the STA itself decides the matter in the first instance.
  • Broader precedent: The opinion does not articulate that it is establishing a new, sweeping precedent beyond the specific statutory interpretation here. The decision applies the court's interpretation of Sections 44(3), 45 and 63 to the facts before it and upholds the challenged resolution; the opinion does not claim to create additional legal doctrines beyond that statutory construction.

Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine.

Show all summary ...

1. By this writ petition the validity of a resolution of the State Transport Authority, Jaipur (Annexure-8) is questioned. I may read that resolution:

“In exercise of the powers under Section 44 sub-section (3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act the State Transport Authority Rajasthan resolves that with effect from the date of the publication of this resolution in the Official Gazette (1) the State Transport Authority shall hereafter grant all types of permits, renewals, transfers etc., on Inter-Regional and Inter-Statal routes. In respect of these routes S.T.A, shall perform all the duties, hitherto being performed by the Regional Transport Authorities.

2. All types of permits on Inter-Statal routes shall be countersigned by the S.T.A”

Sd/- Inder Singh Shekhawat

Secretary

State Transport Authority,

Rajasthan, Jaipur.”

3. The petitioner contends that this resolution is bad, because according to the provisions of Section 44(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter to be referred as the “Act”, the State Transport Authority could not have taken upon itself the functions of the Regional Transport Authority in relation to an inter-statal route. Section 44 empowers the State Government to constitute, for the State, a State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3) thereof and it shall in like manner constitute a Regional Transport Authority to exercise and discharge throughout such areas referred to as regions as may be specified in the notification in respect of each Regional Transport Authority. Sub-section (3) which is the main provision that falls to be considered reads as follows:—

“Sub-section (3). A State Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under Section 43, and subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act shall exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely:—

(a) to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities, if any, of the State;

(b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority and, if it thinks fit or if so required by Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions;

(c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities; and

(d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed.”.

4. sub-section (3) of Section 44 makes it incumbent on the State Transport Authority to give effect to any directions issued under Section 43 of the Act. It is only subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided that the State Transport Authority has to exercise its powers and functions laid down in clauses (a) to (d) of that sub-section. Generally, the State Transport Authority has to act as a co-ordinating authority to regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Authorities. Clause (b) enables the State Transport Authority to perform certain functions of the Regional Authorities under the stated conditions. In my view, this sub-section (b) could be broken as follows:—

(1) The State Transport Authority shall exercise and discharge throughout the State the powers and functions by performing the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such authority.

(2) If the State Transport Authority thinks fit, or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions.

5. The second part can be further subdivided as follows:—

(a) If the State Transport Authority thinks fit it can perform those duties (by which is comprehended the duties of the Regional Transport Authority) in respect of any route common to two or more regions; and

(b) the State Transport Authority shall, if so required by the Regional Authority to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions.

6. According to the plain reading of the sub-section there are three contingencies under which the State Transport Authority will be taking upon itself the normal functions of the Regional Transport Authority. The first contingency is when there is no Regional Transport Authority functioning in any region. There the Legislature has not left a vacuum and when there is no Regional Transport Authority, the State Transport Authority, will fill the vacuum and discharge the duties of the Regional Transport Authority. It has to be remembered that the purpose of enacting Section 44 is to erect the apparatus for the discharge of various statutory functions created by the Act. Therefore, it is legitimate to infer that as soon as there is no Regional Transport Authority available in any region its place will ipso facto be taken by the State Transport Authority. The second contingency is where the State Transport Authority thinks fit to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions and then it can rightly take upon itself such duties. Here again, it has to be remembered that the State Transport Authority, which is created for the entire State, plays the rule of a co-ordinating body and it may very well think in a given situation that the co-ordination will be better advanced by taking upon itself the functions of the Regional Transport Authority in relation to a route which runs through more than one region. The third contingency is when a request has been made by a particular Regional Transport Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this construction will militate against the scheme of the Act. According to learned counsel, under section 64-A of the Act the State Transport Authority has been created as the Revisional Authority and, therefore, if the State Transport Authority were itself to act as the Regional Authority, an applicant will be losing the remedy of a revision under the statute. Having considered this matter carefully I am not persuaded to accept this contention. In the first place, this power of taking over the functions of the Regional Transport Authority has been given to the State Transport Authority only in respect of routes which run in two or more regions and, therefore, Sec. 64-A will undoubtedly operate in respect of routes lying within one region only where the matter has been dealt with by the Regional Transport Authority of that region. There is nothing wrong if a party is not left with the remedy of a revision if the matter comes to be dealt with by the State Transport Authority itself. Revisional jurisdiction is created with a view to enabling superior authorities to correct the errors of inferior authorities and if the matter is dealt with by a superior authority, in the first instance there may be no necessity of making provision for a revisional authority.

7. Learned counsel then submitted that sub-section (3) of Section 44 does not deal with inter-statal routes and, therefore, the State Transport Authority could take over functions of the Regional Transport Authority in relation to routes lying within two regions of the same State only. In this connection learned counsel referred me to Sections 45 and 63 of the Act. Section 45, according to learned counsel, makes a distinction between routes which the in two regions of the same State and routes which the within different States. This is so, but that, in my opinion, does not afford any help in the matter. Section 45 may be reproduced for appreciating this aspect of the matter:

“Section 45. General provisions as to applications for permits. Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles:

Provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles:

Provided further that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying in different States, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business.”.

8. It is true, in the case of a route lying in two regions of the same State the application has to be made before a Regional Transport Authority in which the major portion of the route or area lies and in the case of an inter-statal route the application has to be made before the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. The difference in the procedure regarding the filing of applications is on considerations of convenience, but what is remarkable in this section is that the so-called inter-statal route is not described as such. On the other hand, the only distinction as brought out in this section is that one category of routes are known as routes in two or more regions lying within the same State, and the other category of regions are known as two or more regions lying in different States. It is, to my mind, obvious that whenever the Legislature wanted to confine the provision to regions within the same State, it has chosen to say so in express terms. Likewise, whenever the term “Regions” was meant for regions lying in different States, the Legislature has taken care to say so. If in this light sub-section (3) of Section 44 is read then it is clear that in sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Act the Legislature has not confined the term ‘region’ or “regions” only to regions lying within one State. It is, therefore, legitimate to infer that in Section 44 sub-section (3) when it is said that the State Transport Authority may perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority, in respect of any route common to two or more regions, the State Transport Authority, in my view, is entitled to discharge the functions of the Regional Transport Authority in relation to a route which lies in two regions lying in different States as well. In other words, the State Transport Authority can discharge the functions of the Regional Transport Authority in relation to a so-called inter-statal route which necessarily lies within the two regions of different States.

9. The material portion of S. 63 reads as follows:

“Section 63. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. — (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned:

Provided that a private carrier's permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any-one region with the approval of the State Transport Authority, for any area in any other region or regions within the same State shall be valid in that area without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each of the other regions concerned.

(2) A Regional Transport Authority when countersigning the permit may attach to the permit any condition which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit, and may likewise vary any condition attached to the permit by the Authority by which the permit was granted.

(3) The provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of counter-signatures of permits.

Provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Sec, 57 for the grant of counter-signatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one State are required to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of another State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the States.

… … … … … … … ….

10. This section provides for counter-signatures of permits for vehicles nrnning on routes lying in more than one region. If the route lies in more than one region of the same State, the counter-signature is to be done by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region and if the routes the in more than one region of two different States, then the counter-signature may be given by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that State. Clothing of both the State Transport Authority of the State as well as the concerning Regional Transport Authority is clearly suggestive of the fact that in the matter of inter-statal routes the Legislature has clearly contemplated the discharging of functions of the Regional Transport Authority by the State Transport Authority. It is true, where there is an agreement of reciprocity between the two States for the counter-signatures the procedure of Section 57 of the Act need not be followed, but that has nothing to do with the performance of functions of the Regional Transport Authority by the State Transport Authority in the matter of permits over a route running in two different States. Therefore, the resolution Annexure 8, does not, in my opinion, go counter to either the scheme of Section 44 or Section 45 or Section 63 of the Act for that matter.

11. Before parting with the case I may notice one more submission of the learned counsel that the word “any” occurring before the word “route” in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 44 is significant and it shows that it is only in a particular situation that the State Transport Authority can deal with the grant of permits over a route common to two or more regions. I regret, I have not been able to appreciate the submission, The term “any” occurring before the term “route” signifies, to my mind, that the power is exercisable in respect of any route which runs into two or more regions. Here the term “any” is descriptive of the term “route” and its purpose is to embrace all kinds of routes be they of any class whatsoever. Thus, I do not find any force in the writ petition which I hereby reject in limine.

12. Petition dismissed.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x