- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
A. Venkatakrishnan v. State Transport Authority, Kerala .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner obtained an inter-State stage-carriage permit from the State Transport Authority (STA), Pondicherry, for the route Pandakkal – Palakkad, a route partly in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and partly in the State of Kerala. When the petitioner sought countersignature of this permit from the STA, Kerala, the application was rejected on the strength of this Court’s earlier decision in Ashwani Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (1999) 8 SCC 364. The petitioner invoked Article 32 of the Constitution; the Court, on counsel’s request, treated the writ petition as a Special Leave Petition (SLP), granted leave and heard the matter on the merits.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates the existence of a reciprocal agreement between the concerned States before an inter-State permit can be either granted or countersigned.
- Whether the ratio in Ashwani Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, which requires such reciprocal agreements, warrants reconsideration.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not require a reciprocal agreement between States as a pre-condition for granting an inter-State permit.
- The precedent set in Ashwani Kumar (1999) 8 SCC 364 is incorrect and should be reconsidered.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ashwani Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (1999) 8 SCC 364 | Inter-State permits require a prior reciprocal agreement between the concerned States under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. | The Court reaffirmed this principle and relied on it to dismiss the present appeal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court embarked on a textual and purposive analysis of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act:
- Textual basis: Sub-section (1) of Section 88 states that a permit granted in one State is not valid in another unless countersigned, “except as may be otherwise prescribed.” The Court read this opening phrase together with sub-sections (4) to (6) to conclude that the “otherwise prescribed” situation is the presence of a reciprocal agreement.
- Structure of Chapter V: The Act creates three distinct permit categories—inter-region, intra-State and inter-State—each with separate procedures. An authority in a single State lacks jurisdiction to unilaterally grant an inter-State permit because such permits inherently require validation by another State.
- Role of sub-sections (5) and (6): These provisions establish the machinery for States to publish proposals, invite objections and formally execute agreements fixing the number of permits and operating conditions for each inter-State route. Without completion of this process, no valid inter-State route is in existence.
- Proviso to sub-section (4): The dispensation from the Section 80 procedure for countersignature exists only when permits are issued pursuant to an agreement, underscoring that such an agreement is a pre-condition.
- Purposive construction: Allowing applications in the absence of agreements would create “a vacuum” and render the statutory scheme unworkable; hence, a “mutual approval of the States concerned” is mandatory.
- Applying these principles, the Court held that Pondicherry STA lacked jurisdiction to grant the permit because no reciprocal agreement with Kerala existed. Consequently, Kerala STA’s refusal to countersign was correct.
- The Court expressly endorsed the reasoning in Ashwani Kumar and found no justification for its reconsideration.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is DISMISSED.
Immediate effect: the petitioner’s permit on the Pandakkal–Palakkad route remains invalid for want of a reciprocal agreement, and the Kerala STA’s refusal to countersign stands affirmed. Broader implication: the judgment reinforces the binding nature of reciprocal agreements under Section 88 for all inter-State permits, leaving the precedent in Ashwani Kumar undisturbed and clarifying that unilateral permit grants on inter-State routes are ultra vires the Act.
Order
1. The petitioner herein applied before the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, for grant of permit on the proposed route known as Pandakkal to Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as the proposed inter-State route). A part of the said route lies in the State of Kerala and the other part lies in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The State Transport Authority, Pondicherry by an order dated 17-11-2000, granted inter-State permit, as applied for by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter applied to the State Transport Authority, Kerala, for grant of countersignature. The State Transport Authority, Kerala relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (1999) 8 SCC 364 and rejected the application for grant of countersignature of permit on the aforesaid inter-State route. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
2. When this matter came up before a Bench of this Court, the Court was of the view that this case requires to be decided by a Bench of three learned Judges and it is in this way the matter has come up before us.
3. Initially we were reluctant to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, but on the statement of the learned counsel that it may be treated as a special leave petition, we treat this petition as a special leave petition.
4. Leave granted.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) does not contemplate a reciprocal agreement between the two States for grant of permit on an inter-State route and the decision in the case of Ashwani Kumar (1999) 8 SCC 364 requires reconsideration.
6. Section 88 of the Act provides for validation of permits for use outside the region or the State. Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act provides that 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. Sub-section (4) of Section 88 of the Act lays down that the provision of this chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits. The proviso to this sub-section provides that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 80 of the Act for the grant of countersignatures 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 after complying with the requirements of sub-section (5). Sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act says that every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area, shall be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date not being less than thirty days from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, on which, and the authority by which, and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representation received in connection therewith will be considered.
7. The expression used in sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act “except as may be otherwise prescribed”, indicates that where an application for grant of inter-State route is to be applied, there must be a reciprocal agreement between the two States as contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act and unless and until there is a reciprocal agreement between the two States within which the proposed inter-State route lies, no permit on inter-State route can be granted.
8. Chapter V of the Act lays down a complete code. Three categories of permits are envisaged therein, namely, inter-region, intra-State and inter-State. Criteria and procedures for grant of permits in each of the three categories are different. The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority can grant permit to an owner of the stage carriage to ply his vehicle within the territorial jurisdiction of a region or the State, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of Section 88 of the Act, however, provides for a non obstante clause in terms whereof a permit granted or countersigned by a State Transport Authority shall be valid in the whole State or in such regions within the State as may be specified in the permit. A State, therefore, would not have any jurisdiction to consider any application for grant of inter-State permit which would require the countersignature of the other State.
9. The proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 88 of the Act envisages that where a permit is required to be countersigned by the other State, the procedure laid down under Section 80 of the Act would not be necessary to be followed. Such a provision has obviously been made having regard to the fact that in a case of grant of inter-State permit, the provisions contained in sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 88 of the Act are required to be followed.
10. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 88 of the Act provide for the machinery as regards entering into an agreement between the States, inter alia, to fix the number of permits, which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area in respect whereof publication of the proposal is required to be made in the Official Gazette by each of the State Governments concerned in any one or more of the newspapers. Even after an agreement is entered into between the States, the same is required to be published in the Official Gazette in any one or more of the newspapers in the regional language circulating in the area or route covered by the agreement. The State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority concerned are obligated to give effect to such agreement.
11. For the aforementioned purpose, the competent authorities of the States concerned are required to consider and determine the routes and the number thereof to be opened as inter-State routes. For the said purpose, other conditions required for smooth running of the vehicles are also to be laid down.
12. Furthermore, the definition of “route”, as contained in Section 2(38) of the Act means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. Therefore, before an inter-State route in respect whereof a permit is sought to be granted is determined, the question of filing any application therefor by a person before the State Transport Authority of his State would not arise unless an agreement in relation thereto has been entered into by the States concerned and the routes as also the number of trips are fixed thereunder. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the State Transport Authority of one State would have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for grant of an inter-State route, particularly when Section 80 of the Act will have no application in relation thereof unless an agreement is entered into by the State concerned.
13. A purposive and meaningful construction, it is trite, must be given to a statute, so that it is made workable. A statute should not be construed in such a manner, which would create a vacuum. In the absence of any route being fixed in terms of an agreement, in the event it be held that an application for grant of permit for inter-State route can be entertained, the same would lead to a futile exercise. A mutual approval of the States concerned, in the matter, therefore, must be held to be mandatory. In other words, the proviso, appended to sub-section (4) of Section 88 of the Act, must be read conjointly with sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 88 thereof and, consequently, it must be held that by necessary implication agreements are contemplated for creation of inter-State routes.
14. We are in agreement with the view taken by this Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar case (1999) 8 SCC 364.
15. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert