http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: MOHD-ASHFAQ

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL U.P. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/09/1976

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1976 AIR 2161            1977 SCR  (1) 563  1976 SCC  (4) 330

ACT:         Motor Vehicles Act, 1939---S. 58(2) proviso--Delay in apply-         ing   for   renewal   of  existing   permit--If   could   be         condoned--Chapter IV A.  -- If a delf contained code--Renew-         al application under S. 68F(1D)Whether s.57 applicable.           Limitation Act, 1963--Ss. 5 and 29(2)--If applicable.

HEADNOTE:           Under  the proviso to s. 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles  Act,         1939 an application for renewal of an existing permit  shall         be made not less than 120 days before the date of expiry  of         the permit.  The procedure to be followed in this respect is         the  same  as  provided in s. 57 for the grant  of  a  fresh         permit.  Under s. 58(3) a delay of not more than 15 days  in         making  the renewal application can be condoned by  the  Re-         gional Transport Authority.           The  proviso to s. 68F(1D) provides for the renewal of  an         existing  permit for a limited period when a Scheme is  pub-         lished  under  s. 68C.  Since a Scheme was  published  under         this  section  the appellant made an  application  under  s.         68F(1D)  for renewal of his permit.  R was rejected  by  the         RTA on the ground that there was delay of 18 days which  was         not  capable of being condoned.  The    Transport  Appellate         Tribunal  dismissed his appeal and the High Court  summarily         rejected his writ petition.         In  appeal to this Court it was contended that  (i)  Chapter         IVA  of the Act, which s. 68 occurs, being a  self-contained         code the proviso to s. 58(2) was not applicable in the  case         of an application for renewal filed under the proviso to  s.         68F(1D)  or (ii) in the alternative the delay could be  con-         doned  by the RTA for sufficient cause under s. 5 read  with         s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.         Dismissing the appeal,             HELD:  (1) (a) Section 68F(1D) imposes a prohibition  on         grant  or  renewal of permit during the  intervening  period         between  the  publication of a scheme under s. 68C  and  the         publication  of the approved scheme and if the proviso  were         not  enacted. renewal of an existing permit  expiring  after         the publication  of  the scheme under s. 68C would have been         barred.   This, the legislature did not want and  hence  the         proviso  was  introduced permitting renewal of  an  existing         permit  though  for a limited period,  despite  the  general

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

       prohibition  enacted  in sub-s. (1D). This renewal  was  not         intended  to be some special kind of renewal.  There  is  no         reason  why  the provisions of s. 57 and the proviso  to  s.         58(2)  should  not apply in case of  a  renewal  application         under the proviso to s. 68F(1D).[569 A-B]             (b)  chapter  IVA is not a self-contained code  and  the         other sections apply to an application under the proviso  to         s. 68F(1D)of the Act. [569D]             (i) The procedure in s. 57 applies because. there is  no         other procedure prescribed by the Act.  [569C]             (ii) The time limit specified in the proviso to s. 58(2)         also  applied as otherwise there would be no time limit  for         making an application for renewal.[569D]             (iii)  Section  68F(3) also proceeds on  the  assumption         that, but for its enactment, an order made by the RTA  under         sub˜3 (1) or (2) of s. 68F would have been appealable  under         s. 64 and it was to exclude the applicability of s. 64  that         68F(3) was enacted.   [569 E-F]         564             (2)  The word used in sub-s. 3 is ’may’ and not  ’shall’         and  the RTA is given a discretion to entertain an  applica-         tion  for renewal of a permit even where it is beyond  time,         though not more than 15 days.  It could never have been  the         intention  of  the legislature that even where there  is  no         sufficient  cause  for delay in making  an  application  for         renewal,  the Regional Transport Authority should  still  be         bound to entertain the application for renewal merely on the         ground  that the delay is of not more than 15  days.  [570F.         571A-B]            3 (a) Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes  s.         5  applicable  in  the ease of an  application  for  renewal         unless its applicability can be said to be expressly exclud-         ed by any provision of the Act.  Sub-section (3) of s. 58 in         so  many terms says that the RTA .may condone the  delay  in         making  of  an application for renewal and entertain  it  on         merits provided the delay is of not more than 15 days.  This         clearly means that if the application for renewal is  beyond         time by more than 15 days, the RTA shall not be entitled  to         entetain it.                    [571E-G]             (b)  There  is an express provision in sub-s.  (3)  that         delay in making an application for renewal shall be condona-         ble only if it is of not more than 15 days and that express-         ly  excludes  the applicability of s. 5 in  cases  where  an         application  for  renewal is delayed by more than  15  days.         [571G]

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 871 of 1974.            (Appeal  by  Special Leave from the Judgment  and   Order         dated  3-4-1973 of the Allahabad High Court in  Civil  Misc.         Writ Petition No. 2128/73).             Yogeshwar  Prasad and Miss Rani Arora for M/S Bagga  for         the Appellant.             G.N. Dikshit and O.P. Ran, for Respondents No. 1 and 2.            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             BHAGWATI,  J. This appeal by special leave  is  directed         against   an  order passed by the High  Court  of  Allahabad         rejecting a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging         the  validity of an order of the State  Transport  Appellate         Tribunal  confirming an order  of  the   Regional  Transport         Authority  rejecting  the application of the  appellant  for         renewal  of his stage carriage permit for the route  Nagina-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

       Jaspur.             The route Nagina-Jaspur lies within the jurisdiction  of         the Regional Transport Authority Bareilly. The appellant and         his  brother  Mohd. Ashfaq held a stage carriage permit  for         this  route for some years and it was due to expire  on  1st         July, 1971.  Before the expiration of the period of  permit,         however,  a scheme was prepared and published by  the  State         Transport  Undertaking  under  Section  68C   of  the  Motor         Vehicles Act 1939  (hereinafter referred to as  ’the   Act’)         and  this  scheme  covered  the  route  Nagina-Jaspur.   The         publication  of  this scheme did not affect the validity  of         the  permit  of the  appellant  and Mohd.  Ashfaq  and  they         continued  to ply their motor vehicles on the route  Nagina-         Jaspur on the strength of the permit.  During the   currency         of the permit, several amendments of a far-reaching  charac-         ter were made in the Act by Act 56 of 1969 and  sub-sections         (1A)  to (1D) were introduced in Section 68F after  sub-sec-         tion  (1). These sub-sections are material and they  may  be         reproduced as follows:              "68F(1A) Where any scheme has been published by a State         Transport  Undertaking under section 68C,  that  Undertaking         may apply for a temporary permit. in respect of any         565         area  or  route  or portion thereof specified  in  the  said         scheme,  for  the  period intervening between  the  date  of         publication of the scheme and the date of publication of the         approved  or modified scheme, and where such application  is         made,  the State Transport Authority or the Regional  Trans-         port  Authority, as the case may be, shall, if it is  satis-         fied that it is necessary to increase, in the public  inter-         est, the number of vehicles operating in such area or  route         or portion thereof, issue the temporary permit prayed for by         the State Transport Undertaking.              (1B)  A  temporary permit issued in  pursuance  of  the         provisions of sub-section (1A) shall be effective,--                     (i) if the scheme is published under sub-section                  (3) of section 68D, until the grant  of the  permit                  to   the  State Transport  Undertaking  under  sub-                  section (1), or                     (ii)  if the scheme is not published under  sub-                  section (3) of section 68D, until the expiration of                  the one week from the date on which the order under                  sub-section (2) of section 68D is made.                        (1C)  If  no  application  for  a   temporary                  permit  is made under sub-section (1A),  the  State                  Transport   Authority   or the  Regional  Transport                  Authority,  as the case may be, may grant,  subject                  to  such conditions as it may think fit,  temporary                  permit  to  any person in respect of  the  area  or                  route  or portion thereof specified in the   scheme                  and the  permit so granted shall cease to be effec-                  tive  on the issue of a permit to the State  Trans-                  port Undertaking in respect of that  area or  route                  or portion thereof.                         (1D)  Save  as otherwise  provided  in  sub-                  section  (1A) of sub-section (1C), no permit  shall                  be granted or renewed during the period intervening                  between the date of publication, under section  68C                  of  any scheme and the date of publication  of  the                  approved  or  modified  scheme, in  favour  of  any                  person  for any class of road transport service  in                  relation  to  an area or route or  portion  thereof                  covered by such scheme:                        Provided  that where the period of  operation                  of  a  permit  in relation to any  area,  route  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

                portion  thereof  specified in a  scheme  published                  under section 68C expires  after such  publication,                  such permit  may be  renewed  for a  limited  peri-                  od,  but  the permit so renewed shall cease  to  be                  effective  on the publication of the  scheme  under                  sub-section (3) of section 68D."         Since the permit of the appellant and Mohd. Ashfaq was going         to expire on 1st July, 1971, the appellant made an  applica-         tion  for  renewal of the permit under the proviso  to  sub-         section (1D) of Section 68F and submitted the application to         the Regional Transport Authority on 22nd March, 1971.   When         the application came up for hearing before the         566         Regional Transport Authority, there was admittedly no objec-         tor  against it, but the Regional Transport  Authority  took         the  view that under the proviso to sub-section (2) of  Sec-         tion  58 an application for renewal of a permit is  required         to be made not less than 120 days before the date of  expiry         of  the  permit  and even if there is delay  in  making  the         application,  it  can be condoned under sub-section  (3)  of         Section  58  but only if it is a delay of not more  than  15         days  and  since  in the present case  the  application  for         renewal  of  the permit was made by the  appellant  on  22nd         March, 1971, it was late by 18 days and hence the delay  was         not  capable  of  being condoned  and  in  this   view,  the         Regional  Transport Authority by an order dated 28th  March,         1973  rejected the application for renewal of the permit  as         time-barred.             The appellant preferred an appeal to the State Transport         Appellate  Tribunal  and in the appeal the  appellant  chal-         lenged  the correctness of the order of the Regional  Trans-         port  Authority.   The State Transport  Appellate  Tribunal,         however,  agreed  with the  view  taken   by   the  Regional         Transport Authority and held that in view  of the   specific         prohibition  contained  in  sub-section (3)  read  with  the         proviso to subsection (2) of Section 58 it was not competent         to the Regional Transport Authority to condone the delay  in         making  of the application for renewal of the permit,  since         the  delay  was of more than 15 days.  The  State  Transport         Appellate  Tribunal  also  observed that in  any  event  the         material  produced before the Regional Transport   Authority         did   not make out any sufficient cause for not  making  the         application for renewal of the permit within time and  hence         even  if there was no statutory bar against  condonation  of         delay of more than 15 days, this was not a fit case in which         the delay should be condoned.  The State Transport Appellate         Tribunal  accordingly confirmed  the order of  the  Regional         Transport Authority.             This led to the filing of a writ petition by the  appel-         lant  in the High Court of Allahabad.  The High  Court  sum-         marily   rejected the  writ petition stating that no  ground         had  been made out for exercise of the extraordinary  juris-         diction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitu-         tion.  Hence the appellant brought the present  appeal  with         special leave obtained from this Court.             Two contentions were urged on behalf of the appellant in         support  of the appeal.  The first contention was  that  the         time  limit specified in the proviso to sub-section  (2)  of         section 58 was not applicable in case of an application  for         renewal of a permit under the proviso to subsection (10)  of         section  68F  and the Regional Transport Authority  was  not         entitled  to  reject the application of  the  appellant  for         renewal  of  his  permit as time-barred. It  has  also  been         contended in the alternative that even if the time limit set         out  in  to  proviso to sub-section (2) of  section  58  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

       applicable,  sub-section  (3) extended such  time  limit  by         fifteen  days  and even if thereafter there  was  any  delay         beyond the extended time limit, it could be condoned by  the         Regional Transport Authority for sufficient cause by  reason         of  section 5 read with section 29,  subsection (2)  of  the         Limitation Act, 1963.  The second contention Which  followed         on  the  acceptance  of the last  contention  was  that  the         appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appli-         cation for renewal         567         of  his permit within the extended time limit and hence  the         Regional Transport Authority should have condoned the  delay         and entertained the application on merits.  The validity  of         both these contentions was disputed on behalf of respondents         1  and 2 and it was urged that the time limit  specified  in         the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 58 was  applicable         in  the present case and the only delay which could be  con-         doned was a delay of 15 days and not more and in any  event,         there was no sufficient cause made out by the appellant  for         not making the application for renewal within time and hence         the  application for renewal was rightly rejected  as  time-         barred.   We shall proceed to consider the merits  of  these         rival contentions.             The  first  question which arises for  consideration  on         these   contentions  is as to whether the  time  limit  pre-         scribed  by  the  proviso to subsection (2)  of  section  58         applies  in case of an application for renewal of  a  permit         under  the proviso to sub-section (10) of section  68F.  The         argument  of  the  appellant was that  Chapter   IVA   which         contains,  inter  alia,  section 68F,  is  a  self-contained         Chapter  and  nothing  in the other provisions  of  the  Act         applies to proceedings under that Chapter and hence  neither         the procedure under section 57 nor the time limit  specified         in  the  proviso 10 sub-section (2) of section  58  has  any         application to an application for renewal of a permit  under         the  proviso  to  sub-section (10) of  section  68-F.   This         argument  is, in our opinion, manifestly wrong.  The  scheme         of Chapter IVA is clear and it does not exclude the applica-         bility  of  the provisions contained in section 57  and  the         proviso  to  sub-section  (2) of section  68.   Chapter  IVA         contains  a fasciculus of sections commencing  from  section         68A  and  ending with section 68-B.   Section  68-A  defines         certain expressions used in Chapter IVA.  Section 68-B gives         overriding effect to the provisions contained in Chapter IVA         by saying that these provisions shall have effect,  notwith-         standing  anything  inconsistent  therewith   contained   in         Chapter IV or in any other law for the time being in  force.         Section  68-C  provides  that  where  any  State   Transport         Undertaking  is  of opinion that for the purpose of  provid-         ing  an  efficient, adequate, economical  and  properly  co-         ordinated  road  transport service, it is necessary  in  the         public  interest that road transport service in relation  to         any route should be run and operated by the State  Transport         Undertaking, a scheme may be prepared by the S1ate Transport         Undertaking giving particulars of the nature of the services         proposed  to be rendered, the route proposed to  be  covered         and  other prescribed particulars and such scheme  shall  be         duly published.  Certain  categories of persons  are  empow-         ered  by  section 68-D sub-section (1)  to  file  objections         against  the  scheme published under sect-ion 68-C  and  the         State Government may then, after considering such objections         and hearing the  parties, approve or modify the scheme under         sub-section  (2) of section 68-D. Section  68-D  sub-section         (3)  provides that the scheme as approved or modified  under         sub-section  (2)   shall  be  Published  in   the   Official

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

       Gazette  and  it shall thereupon become final and  shall  be         called   the  approved  scheme and the routes  to  which  it         relates  shall be called the notified routes.  Section  68-E         provides  for  concellation or modification of  the  scheme.         Then follows section 68-F which is material for our purpose.         Sub-section  (1)  of that section provides for  issue  of  a         permit  to the State Transport Undertaking in respect  of  a         notified route         568         after  publication  of an approved scheme.  But what  is  to         happen   during  the  period between the  publication  of  a         scheme  under  section 68-C and the publication of  the  ap-         proved  scheme under sub-section (3) of section 68-D ?  That         is taken care of by sub-sections (1A) to (1-D)   of  section         68F.  Sub-section (1-A) provides that for this   intervening         period,  the  State Transport Undertaking may  apply  for  a         temporary     permit in respect of a route specified in  the         scheme  and  where such application is  made,  the  Regional         Transport   Authority  shall, if it is satisfied that it  is         necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of         vehicles  operating  on  such route,  issue  the   temporary         permit prayed for by the State Transport  Undertaking.  What         shall be  the duration of such temporary permit is laid down         in  sub-section  (1-B).  Sub-section (1-C)  deals  with  the         situation  where  no application for a temporary  permit  is         made by the State Transport Undertaking and it says that  in         such  a  case, the Regional Transport  Authority  may  grant         temporary permit to any person in respect of a route  speci-         fied  in the scheme.   Sub-section (1-D) imposes a  prohibi-         tion  that "save as otherwise provided in sub-section  (1-A)         and sub-section (1-C), no permit shall be granted or renewed         during  the period intervening between the date of  publica-         tion under section 68-C of any scheme and the date of publi-         cation  of  the approved or modified scheme, in   favour  of         any  person" in relation to a route covered by such  scheme,         but  this is subject to a proviso that where the  period  of         operation of a permit in relation to any route "specified in         a  scheme  published under section 68-C expires  after  such         publication,  such  permit may be  renewed   for  a  limited         period".  It will, therefore, be seen that  where a   scheme         is  published under section 68-C, no permit in respect of  a         route  specified  in the scheme can be  granted  or  renewed         during the intervening period between the publication of the         scheme  under  section  68-C  and  the  publication  of  the         approved  scheme,  except a temporary permit  to  the  State         Transport  Undertaking  under sub-section (1-A)  or  failing         that,  a  temporary permit to any other  person  under  sub-         section  (1-C),  with this qualification  that  an  existing         permit can be renewed for a limited period.  The holder   of         an  existing  permit  would  obviously  exnecessitas have to         make  an  application, if he  wants  renewal of  his  permit         and the application for renewal would be  considered by  the         Regional  Transport Authority.  The question is:   can  this         application  for renewal be made at any time and when it  is         made, what procedure would govern it.   Section 57 lays down         the procedure to be followed in dealing with an  application         got  grant of a permit and by reason of section 58  sub-sec-         tion  (2), that procedure is applicable also in relation  to         an application for renewal of a permit. There is also a time         limit laid down in the proviso to sub_section (2) of section         58  which says, in so far as relevant, that  an  application         for  renewal  of a .permit shall be made not less  than  120         days  before the date of expiry of the permit. These  provi-         sions  in section 57 and the proviso to sub-section  (2)  of         section  58 on their plain language apply to every  applica-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

       tion  for renewal of a permit and it is indeed difficult  to         see  what  difference there is between  an  application  for         renewal  of a permit under the proviso to sub-section  (1-D)         of  section 68-F and any other application for renewal of  a         permit.   An application for renewal of a permit under.  the         proviso  to sub-section (1-D) of section 68-F is as much  an         application for renewal as any other.  It had to be special-         ly provided for in the         569         proviso  to  sub-section (1-D) of  section   68-F,   because         sub-section (1-D) imposes a prohibition on grant or  renewal         of permit during the intervening period between the publica-         tion  of a scheme under section 68-C and the publication  of         the  approved scheme and, ii the proviso were  not  enacted,         renewal of an existing permit expiring after the publication         of  the scheme under section 68-C would have  been   barred.         This, the Legislature did not want and hence the proviso was         introduced  permitting renewal of an existing permit  though         for a limited period, despite the general prohibition enact-         ed in sub-section (1-D). This renewal was not intended to be         sore6  special  kind  of  renewal different from  any  other         ordinary  renewal  of a  permit.  There  is,  therefore,  no         reason in principle why the provisions enacted in section 57         and the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 58 should  not         apply  in  case of an application for renewal  of  a  permit         under the proviso to sub-section (1-D) of section 68-F.   If         the procedure set out in section 57 does not apply in such a         case,  there is no other  procedure  prescribed by  the  Act         which  can possibly be invoked and the result would be  that         them would be no procedure for dealing with such an applica-         tion.  for renewal and in that event, how would  the  objec-         tions  be  invited against the application for  renewal  and         within what time  and  who would be entitled to be heard and         when  ?   And equally if  the  time Limit specified  in  the         proviso  to  sub-section (2) of section 58 does  not  apply,         there would be no time limit for making such an  application         for  renewal and it would be possible to make it  any  time,         even  after the expiry of the period of the permit  and  the         Regional Transport Authority would be bound to consider  it.         That  surely  could  never have been the  intention  of  the         Legislature.   Moreover, it is implicit in the enactment  of         section  68-B  that  Chapter IV-A is  not  a  self-contained         Chapter  to which the other provisions of the Act are  inap-         plicable.  If  Chapter  IVA were a  self-contained  Code  by         itself,  there  would have been no need to  give  overriding         effect  to the provisions in that Chapter   as  against  the         other  provisions of the Act. Section 68-F, sub-section  (3)         also proceeds on the assumption that, but for its enactment,         an  order  made by the Regional  Transport  Authority  under         sub-section  (1)  or sub-section (2) of section  68-F  would         have  been  appealable  under section 64 and it was  to  ex-         clude the applicability of section 64  that sub-section (3 )         of section 68-F was enacted.  These two circumstances dearly         point  to  the conclusion that the other provisions  of  the         Act,  to the extent to which their language warrants,  apply         in relation to proceedings under Chapter IVA, save in so far         as they may be, expressly    or by reason of repugnance   or         inconsistency,   overridden. We must, therefore, reject  the         first contention of the appellant which seeks to exclude the         applicability  of the proviso to sub-section (2) of  section         58  to  an  application for renewal of a  permit  under  the         proviso to subsection (1-D) of section 68-F.             That takes us to the next question as to the applicabil-         ity of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to an  applica-         tion for renewal of a permit. It would be convenient at this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

       state to refer to the provisions of subsections (2) and  (3)         of section 58, which, so far as material, read as follows:                  "(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made                  570                  and disposed of as if it were an application for  a                  permit:                        Provided that the application for the renew,d                  of a permit shall be made--                    (a) in the case of a stage  carriage  permit or a                  public                    carrier’s  permit,  not less than   one   hundred                  and  twenty                    days before the date of its expiry; and                      (b) in any other case, not less than sixty days                  before the date of its expiry:                      Provided  further that, other conditions  being                  equal,  an application for renewal shall  be  given                  preference over new applications for permits.                    (3)  Notwithstanding  anything contained  in  the                  first  proviso  to sub-section  (2),  the  Regional                  Transport  Authority may entertain  an  application                  for  the  renewal of a permit after the  last  date                  specified  in  the said proviso for the  making  of                  such an application, if the application is made not                  more than fifteen days after the said last date and                  is accompanied by the prescribed fee."         The proviso to sub-section (2) requires that an  application         for  renewal  of a permit should be made not less  than  120         days before the date of expiry of the permit.  But, notwith-         standing  this provision, the Regional  Transport  Authority         may,  under  sub-section (3), entertain an  application  for         renewal of a permit after the last date specified in subsec-         tion (2), "if the application is made not more than 15  days         after  the  said last date and is accompanied  by  the  pre-         scribed fee." Sub-section (3) thus vests a discretion in the         Regional Transport Authority to entertain an application for         renewal  of a permit even if it is beyond time, but in  that         case the delay should not be of more than fifteen days.  The         word  used in sub-section (3) is "may" and not  "shall"  and         the  Regional Transport Authority is given a  discretion  to         entertain ,m application for renewal of a permit even  where         it  is beyond time, though not more than 15 days.    It  may         condone  the delay or it may not, depending on  the  circum-         stances of each case.  The discretion is be exercised not on         any arbitrary of fanciful grounds or whim or caprice of  the         Regional  Transport  Authority, but it is to be  a  judicial         discretion.    It  is true that the criterion  which  is  to         guide  the Regional Transport Authority in the  exercise  of         its discretion is not articulated in sub-section (3), but it         is implicit in every conferment of discretion on a  judicial         or  quasi-judicial  authority that the discretion is  to  be         exercised in a judicial manner on well settled  legal  prin-         ciples.  would not be right to attribute to the  Legislature         an intention to confer unguided and unfettered discretion on         the  Regional  Transport Authority which  is  quasi-judicial         authority.    The  discretion is obviously to  be  exercised         where  sufficient cause for not making the  application  for         renewal within time is made out by the applicant.  This         571         criterion can legitimately be imported from section 5 of the         Limitation Act, 1963 which contains an allied provision  for         condonation  of delay where an application is  made   beyond         time.  It could  never have been the intention of the Legis-         lature  that  even where there is no  sufficient  cause  for         delay  in making an application for renewal,   the  Regional

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

       Transport  Authority should still be bound to entertain  the         application for renewal merely, on the ground that the delay         is  of  not  more than 15 days.  Sub-section  (3)  enacts  a         provision for condonation of delay in making an  application         for  renewal  and  not provision extending  the  time  limit         specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) in all cases  as         a  matter of course.  If the intention  of the   Legislature         were  that in every case delay of not more than 15  days  in         making  an application for renewal should be condoned as  of         course,  there was no need for a separate provision in  sub-         section  (3), but the Legislature could have very  specified         "one  hundred  and five days" instead of  "one  hundred  and         twenty days" in the proviso to sub-section (2).             It  is, therefore, dear that sub-section (3) of  section         58 confers a discretion on the Regional Transport  Authority         to  entertain  an application for renewal when  it  is  made         beyond  the time limit specified in the proviso to  sub-sec-         tion (2), but not more than 15 days late and the  discretion         is to be exercised in favour of entertaining the application         for renewal when it is shown that there was sufficient cause         for  not making it in time.   Now the question which  arises         is:  does section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply so  as         to  empower the Regional Transport Authority, for sufficient         cause, to entertain an application for renewal even where it         is delayed by more than 15 days? Section 29, sub-section (2)         of  the Limitation Act, 1963 makes section 5  applicable  in         the  case of an application for renewal unless its  applica-         bility can be said to be expressly excluded by any provision         of  the  Act.  The only provision of the Act  sought  to  be         pressed  into service for this purpose was sub-section  (3).         Does sub-section (3) expressly exclude further extension  of         time under section 5 ?  If it does, then section 5 cannot be         availed  of by the appellant for condonation of  the  delay.         Sub-section  (3)  in so many terms says  that  the  Regional         Transport  Authority may condone the delay in making  of  an         application for renewal and entertain it on merits  provided         the delay is of not more than 15 days.   This clearly  means         that  if the application for renewal is beyond time by  more         than 15 days, the Regional Transport Authority shall not  be         entitled to entertain it or in other words, it shall have no         power  to  condone  the delay.   There is  thus  an  express         provision in sub-section (3) that delay in making an  appli-         cation for renewal shall be condonable only if it is of  not         more  than 15 days and that expressly excludes the  applica-         bility of section 5 in cases where an application for renew-         al is delayed by more than 15 days.  This provision may seem         harsh,  but  it  has been deliberately  and  advisedly  made         because  the question of renewal of a permit must  obviously         be decided before the expiration of the period of the permit         and in view of the elaborate procedure set out in section 57         for  dealing  with  an application for  renewal,  a  certain         minimum period before the expira-         5--1234SCI/76         572         tion  of  the period of the permit must be  provided  within         which this procedure can be completed so that the,   renewal         can, if at  all,  be granted well in time before the  permit         expires.  If an application for renewal could be entertained         even if made at any stage, it would dislocate the procedural         machinery set out in section 57 and that is why the Legisla-         ture  prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 58  that  the         delay  in making an application for renewal may be  condoned         by   the Regional Transport Authority only if it is  of  not         more than 15 days. Here, the application made by the  appel-         lant  for renewal of his permit was admittedly late by  more

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

       than 15 days and hence the delay was not condonable and  the         Regional  Transport  Authority was right  in  rejecting  the         application for renewal as time barred.             We  must, in the circumstances, dismiss the appeal,  but         in  view of the peculiar facts of the case we make no  order         as to costs.         P.B.R.                                 Appeal dismissed.         573