Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. v. Behari Lal Chaurasia And Another .

Supreme Court Of India

Aug 17, 1965

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Case Information

CITATION CODES

citation codes

CASE NO.

Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 11th November, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 238 of 1964.,Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1965, decided on 17th day of August, 1965

Attorney(S)

G.S Pathak, Senior Advocate (A.G Ratnaparkhi, Advocate with him).

B.R.L Iyengar, Manmohan Krishnan Kaul, S.K Mehta and K.L Mehta, Advocates.

JUDGES

Justice M. Hidayatullah

Justice S.M. Sikri

Justice J.C. Shah

ACTS

Section 57 read with Section 63(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Section 68 of the Act

Section 63, Rule 63 of the Transport Act

Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Section 45, First Proviso of the [year not specified] Act

Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Section 57, Subsection (2) of the Transport Act

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Section 45 of the Act

Section 58(2) proviso one of the Act

Article 133(l)(c) of the Constitution

Section 58, Subsection (1) of the Transport Act

Sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Section 58, Subsection (3) of the Transport Act

Section 58, Subsection (2) of the Transport Act

Section 58, Subsection (2) of the [year not specified] Act

Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act

The Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939

Section 58(2) proviso one of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Rule 63 framed under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act

See more information ... Less ...

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

In 1957 the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Jabalpur granted Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company (“the appellant”) a stage-carriage permit for the inter-regional route Jabalpur–Chhatarpur. The permit was countersigned by the RTA, Rewa, the authority for the other region through which part of the route passed. A renewal was granted in 1960 (effective until 9 August 1963) and was likewise countersigned.

On 7 June 1963 the appellant applied to the Jabalpur RTA for renewal of the permit. On 6 December 1963 that authority renewed the permit up to 9 February 1966. The next day the appellant asked the Rewa RTA to countersign the renewed permit. The application was published on 2 January 1964 and attracted objections from three operators, including Behari Lal Chaurasia (“the first respondent”), who argued that the request was time-barred under the proviso to s. 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Despite the objections, on 17 March 1964 the Rewa RTA granted the countersignature. The first respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the countersignature application was out of time and that the Rewa RTA lacked jurisdiction; it therefore quashed the order of 17 March 1964. The present appeal was brought to the Supreme Court with a certificate under Art. 133(1)(c).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, an application for renewal of a countersignature must be filed within the limitation period prescribed for renewal of the permit itself.
Whether the Rewa RTA had jurisdiction to countersign a renewed permit after the Jabalpur RTA—competent under Rule 63 to do so—had already refused countersignature.
Whether a permit granted by one RTA is wholly inoperative until countersigned by the other RTA, or is valid within the grantor’s region pending such countersignature.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Section 63(3) merely applies the procedural provisions on grant, revocation and suspension to countersignatures; it does not import the time-limit in s. 58(2) to an application for countersignature.
The Rewa RTA therefore possessed jurisdiction to entertain and grant the countersignature even though the application was filed after the statutory period for renewal of the permit.

Respondent's Arguments

A permit for an inter-regional route is an integrated, unitary permit; until countersigned by the second RTA it is wholly ineffective.
Consequently, an application for renewal of countersignature must be made within the sixty-day period laid down in the first proviso to s. 58(2); failure to do so bars the RTA from granting it.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to resolve the parties’ clash over the interaction between ss. 58 and 63, choosing instead to decide the appeal on the basis of the relevant delegated legislation—the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940:

Rule 61 incorporates the statutory requirement that applications for renewal of permits must be filed at least two months before expiry.
Rule 62(a) expressly applies the same timing requirement to an application for renewal of a countersignature.
Rule 63(a) empowers the RTA that renews a permit to “likewise renew” any countersignature, unless the other RTA has issued a contrary general or special order.
This rule-making power is authorised by s. 68, and the Act itself (s. 63(1) opening words: “Except as may be otherwise prescribed”) makes statutory provisions subject to such rules. The validity of conferring countersigning authority on the issuing RTA was therefore unassailable.
In the present case the appellant had, in fact, applied to the Jabalpur RTA both for renewal of the permit and for renewal of the countersignature. The Jabalpur RTA renewed the permit but—acting under Rule 63—refused the countersignature.
A permit granted by one RTA is immediately valid within that RTA’s region; countersignature only extends its operation to the other region. Therefore the permit, as renewed, remained operative within the Jabalpur region notwithstanding the absence of countersignature.
Because the Jabalpur RTA had discretionary power to refuse countersignature and had exercised that power, the Rewa RTA had no jurisdiction to override its decision. One RTA cannot “sit in judgment” over the discretion of another RTA empowered by the Act or the Rules.
Accordingly, the Rewa RTA’s order of 17 March 1964 granting countersignature was ultra vires and void.

Holding and Implications

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order quashing the countersignature granted by the Rewa RTA.

Implications: The decision confirms that under Rule 63 the RTA renewing an inter-regional permit has primary authority over renewal of countersignature, and its refusal cannot be circumvented by the other RTA. The ruling preserves the appellant’s permit for the Jabalpur segment of the route but leaves it ineffective in the Rewa region. No broader precedent was set beyond clarifying the hierarchical relationship between Regional Transport Authorities under the 1940 Rules.

Show all summary ...

Shah, J.— In 1957 the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur granted to Messrs Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company, Nowgaon — hereinafter called “the appellant” — a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to ply stage carriages on an inter-regional route — Jabalpur to Chhatarpur — in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the permit was countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa within whose jurisdiction a part of the route lay. The permit was renewed in 1960 for a period of three years expiring on August 9, 1963 by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur and it was countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. On June 7, 1963 the appellant applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur for renewal of the permit, and by order dated December 6, 1963 the permit was renewed for the period ending February 9, 1966. By its application dated December 7, 1963 the appellant requested the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa to countersign the permit so renewed. This application was published as required by Section 57 read with Section 63(3) of the Act on January 2, 1964. Three motor transport operators, amongst whom was the first respondent Behari Lal Chaurasia, objected to the grant of counter-signature to the permit, inter alia, on the ground that the application was barred by the law of limitation prescribed by Section 58(2) proviso one, and the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa had no power to grant counter-signature of renewal after the expiry of that period. The Regional Transport Authority, Rewa overruled the objection, and by order dated March 17, 1964 granted counter-signature of the permit.

2. The first respondent then applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a writ quashing the order dated March 17, 1964 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. In the view of the High Court an application for renewal of the permit and an application for renewal of counter-signature must be made within the period prescribed by Section 58(2) of the Act, and the appellant having failed to apply within that period, the application of the appellant for renewal of the counter-signature was barred and the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa had no jurisdiction to countersign the permit renewed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur. The High Court accordingly quashed the order dated March 17, 1964. With certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133(l)(c) of the Constitution, the appellant has appealed to this Court.

3. It may be convenient in the first instance to refer to the material provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 which have a bearing on the validity of the order dated March 17, 1964. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that 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. By the proviso to Section 45 it is enacted that where 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. Section 47 sets out the procedure of the Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for stage carriage permits and prescribes the matters which may be taken into account by that officer in granting or rejecting the applications for stage carriage permits. By Section 48 it is provided that subject to the provisions of Section 47, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it, grant a stage carriage permit, in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit, valid for a specified route or routes or specified area. Sub-section (3) of Section 48 authorises the Authority to grant a stage carriage permit subject to one or more of the conditions specified therein. Section 57 prescribes the procedure in “applying for and granting permits”. An application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit shall, it is provided by sub-section (2), be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect, or, if the Regional Transport Authority appoints dates for the receipt of such applications, on such dates. By sub-section (1) of Section 58 it is provided that a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit other than a temporary permit shall be effective without renewal for such period not less than three years and not more than five years, as the Regional Transport Authority may specify in the permit. Sub-section (2) enacts that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit, provided that the application for the renewal of a permit shall be made (a) in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry; and (b) in any other case, not less than thirty days before the date of its expiry. By sub-section (3) the Authority is, notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to sub-section (2), authorised to entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in the said proviso, if the application is made not more than fifteen days after the said last date. Section 63 deals with inter-regional and inter-State permits. The material parts of the section are as under:

“(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 * * *

(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 countersignatures of permits:

Provided * * *

Section 68 by the first sub-section authorises the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV.

4. A stage carriage permit granted by a Regional Transport Authority therefore remains effective without renewal for a period of not less than three years and not more than five years as the Authority may specify in the permit. A person desiring to obtain renewal of the permit must, in the case of a stage carriage permit, make an application not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry, and the Authority has to deal with the application for renewal as if it were an application for a permit. The procedure for obtaining renewal is assimilated to the procedure prescribed for an application for a first permit, but in order that there may be no hiatus the legislature has provided that the application for renewal shall be made not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry, it being assumed that the Authority would be able in the interval to publish the application, and to hear objections to the grant of renewal. Except as may be otherwise prescribed, an inter-regional permit by a Regional Transport Authority in any region, is not valid unless the permit is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. The provisions of Chapter IV relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of counter-signatures of permits.

5. The High Court held that an application for renewal of countersignature has also to be made not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry and if no such application is made, the Regional Transport Authority has no power to countersign the permit, and on that ground discharged the order issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that by Section 63(3) the provisions contained in Chapter IV relating to grant, revocation and suspension of permits are made applicable to grant of countersignatures of permits, to the application for counter-signature of an inter-regional permit, the provisions relating to renewal contained in Section 58 have no application. Counsel for the respondent submitted that a permit granted by an Authority competent under Section 45 of the Act is an integrated permit in respect of a unitary route, and until the permit is countersigned by the Authority in the other region, it is wholly ineffective.

6. We do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the contentions advanced by the parties on this part of the case, for, we are of the view that this appeal may be decided on the interpretation of the rules made by the State Government in regard to grant of permits and counter-signature of inter-regional permits. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 were made by the appropriate authority and it is common ground that those rules were at the material time in operation in the two regions — Jabalpur and Rewa — in the State of Madhya Pradesh, with which we are concerned. By Rule 61, it was provided:

“(a) Application for the renewal of a permit shall be made, in writing to the Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued not less than two months, in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, and not less than one month in other cases, before the expiry of the permit, and shall be accompanied by Part A of the permit. The application shall state the period for which the renewal is desired and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed in Rule 55.

(b) The Regional Transport Authority renewing a permit shall call upon the holder to produce Part B or Parts B thereof, as the case may be, and shall endorse Parts A and B accordingly and shall return them to the holder.”

Rule 62, by clause (a) provided:

“Subject to the provisions of Rule 63, application for the renewal of a counter-signature on a permit shall be made in writing to the Regional Transport Authority concerned and within the appropriate periods prescribed in Rule 61 and shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (b), be accompanied by Part A of the permit. The application shall set forth the period for which the renewal of the counter-signature is required.”

Rule 63, by clause (a), provided:

“The authority by which a permit is renewed may, unless any authority by which the permit has been countersigned (with effect not terminating before the date of expiry of the permit) has by general or special order otherwise directed, likewise renew any counter-signature of the permit (by endorsement of the permit in the manner set forth in the appropriate Form) and shall, in such case, intimate the renewal to such authority”.

Rule 61 substantially incorporates the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 58 and the proviso thereto, and makes certain incidental provisions. By clause (a) of Rule 62 it is provided that the application for renewal of counter-signature has to be made within the period prescribed in Rule 61 i.e it has to be made not less than two months before the expiry of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit. By Rule 63, power is conferred upon the Authority which grants an inter-regional permit under the first proviso to Section 45 (unless by any general or special order the other Authority has directed otherwise) to countersign the permit so as to make it valid for the other region covered by the route. Therefore, eventhough by Section 63 the power to countersign the permit is entrusted to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the remaining part of the route is situate, by Rule 63 the power to countersign may also be exercised by the Authority who grants the original permit. The Regional Transport Authority Jabalpur was therefore competent to grant renewal of the permit and was also competent by virtue of Rule 63 to countersign the permit so as to make it valid even for that part of the route which lay in the Rewa region.

7. The legislature has by providing in the opening part of sub-section (1) “Except as may be otherwise prescribed” made the provision subject to the rules framed under Section 68, and a rule conferring authority to countersign the permit insofar as it relates to an other region upon the Authority who issues the permit is made. The validity of a section which is made subject to the provisions of the rules to be framed by a piece of delegated legislation is not challenged before us. Rule 63 must therefore prevail over the direction of the statute. There is no substance in the contention raised by counsel for the appellant that the State Government had no power to frame Rule 63. Power to frame rules for carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV is expressly granted to the State Government by Section 68, and the exercise of that power, if it be utilised for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, is not subject to any other implied limitations.

8. In the present case an application for countersignature of renewal of the permit was made to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, and it was rejected. It is unfortunate that this application and the reasons in support of the order of the Authority are not on the record of the case. But it appears clear from the following recital in the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa that the application for countersignature was made to the Authority at Jabalpur and it was rejected:

“Need for moving this authority for getting the countersignature renewed certainly arose when the RTA Jabalpur declined to sanction the renewal of countersignature.”

9. Truth of this recital is accepted by counsel at the Bar. The result therefore is that an application was made under Section 63 read with Section 58(2) to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur for renewal of the permit and also for countersignature of the renewal of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur granted renewal of the permit, but declined to grant countersignature of the permit, insofar as it related to the Rewa region. Under Section 63 a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region is not valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. The clearest implication of this provision is that even an inter-regional permit when granted is valid for the region over which the Authority granting the permit has jurisdiction, and when it is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region, the permit becomes valid for the entire route. We are unable to agree with counsel for the respondent that the permit has no validity whatever until it is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region.

10. The Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur renewed the permit for the Jabalpur region, but declined to countersign the permit in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 63 framed under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the route within the Rewa region. The conclusion is inevitable that the Authority granted the permit only operative between Jabalpur and the point at which the route entered the Rewa region: in substance, he merely granted a regional permit limited to the route within the Jabalpur region. The permit being a regional permit and not an interregional permit, there was no part of the route for which the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa could by countersigning the permit extend it so as to make it operative within the Rewa region. In any event as one Regional Transport Authority is not competent to sit in judgment over the discretion exercised by any other Regional Transport Authority upon whom the power is conferred in regard to a particular matter under the statute, the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa granting countersignature in the teeth of the earlier order of the Jabalpur Authority was invalid.

11. We therefore confirm the order of the High Court, but for different reasons. We deem it, however, necessary to make it clear that our order does not affect the validity of the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, insofar as it relates to the route between Jabalpur and the point of entry of the route into the Rewa region. The appellant will pay the costs to the respondent in this appeal.***