http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE,MOUDHAPARA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,RAIPUR AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/10/1965

BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. HIDAYATULLAH, M.

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1318            1966 SCR  (2) 221  CITATOR INFO :  R          1978 SC 215  (34)  R          1992 SC 320  (47)

ACT:  Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), s. 63 and Central Provinces and  Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, rr. 62 and,  63-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The  Regional  Transport Authority,  Bilaspur,  granted  the appellant renewal of the stage carriage permit for an inter- regional  route, The appellant, thereafter, applied  to  the Regional  Transport  Authority, Raipur, for renewal  of  the grant of counter-signature on the renewed permit, and it was granted.   In  an  application under Art.  226  by  the  2nd respondent, the High Court quashed the order of the Regional Transport   Authority,  Raipur,  on  the  ground  that   the appellant’s application for renewel of the counter-signature was barred by time. In appeal to this Court, HELD : On a proper construction of the Central Provinces and Berar  Motor Vehicles Rules made by the State Government  in regard  to  the grant of permits and  counter-signatures  of inter-regional  permits, the Regional  Transport  Authority, Raipur, was not competent to renew the counter-signature  on the  permit  for  the inter-regional route  granted  by  the Regional  Transport Authority, Bilaspur, and the permit  was valid  only  so far as it related to the  route  within  the limits of Bilaspur region, (225 H] Even  though by s. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1939,  the power  to  counter-sign  the  permit  is  entrusted  to  the Regional  Transport  Authority of the region  in  which  the remaining part of the route is situate, the effect of r.  63 is  that the power to counter-sign the permit is  vested  in the  Authority which grants the renewal of the  permit.   In the  context and the language of the rule the word "may"  in the rule, though permissive in form, is obligatory.  If  the Regional  Transport Authority, Bilaspur, had power to  renew the counter-signature on the permit under the rule,, it must be  held that the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur,  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

no  such  power  under r. 62, because, the  latter  rule  As expressly  made subject to the provisions of r. 63, and  the power  granted to the Regional Transport Authority under  r. 62 is taken away by the provisions of r.     63. [227 C-G] M/s.   Bundelkhand  Motors Transport Company  v.  Beharilal, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 485, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1965. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated November 13,  1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.  Petition No.  373 of 1964. M.   S. Gupta, for the appellant. 222 B. R. L. Iyengar, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami,  J.  On  August 7, 1963  the  Regional  Transport Authority, Bilaspur granted to the Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service,  (hereinafter called the appellant), renewal  of  a stage carriage permit for an inter-regional route-Saraipalli to Sarangarh-in the State of Madhya Pradesh.  The permit was valid upto August 5, 1963 and by the order of renewal  dated August 7, 1963 the permit was renewed for a period of  three years.   On September 13, 1963 the appellant applied to  the Regional  Transport  Authority, Raipur for  renewal  of  the grant of countersignature on the renewed permit.  Respondent no.  2  objected  to the renewal of the  grant  of  counter- signature  on  the  ground  that  the  application  of   the appellant dated September 13, 1963 was barred by time.   The Regional   Transport   Authority,  Raipur  held   that   the application for renewal of the grant of countersignature was not  made  within  the time prescribed by  rule  62  of  the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules but it took the  view  that the application for renewal had  been  filed within six weeks of the date of the passing of the order  of renewal  of the permit by the Regional Transport  Authority, Bilaspur  and therefore the application for the  renewal  of the  grant of countersignature could not be rejected on  the ground  that  it was time barred.   The  Regional  Transport Authority,  Raipur  accordingly granted the renewal  of  the counter-signature on the permit by its order dated  February 24,  1964.  Respondent no. 2 thereafter applied to the  High Court  of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the  Constitution of  India for a writ quashing the order dated  February  24, 1964  passed  by the Regional Transport  Authority,  Raipur. The High Court took the view that an application for renewal of  the grant of counter-signature must be made  within  the period prescribed by s. 58 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the appellant having failed to apply within that period, the application  of  the appellant for renewal of  the  counter- signature  on  the  permit  was  barred  and  the   Regional Transport   Authority,   Raipur  had  no   jurisdiction   to countersign  the  permit renewed by the  Regional  Transport Authority, Bilaspur.  The High Court accordingly quashed the order  dated  February  24,  1964  passed  by  the  Regional Transport Authority, Raipur.  This appeal is brought by  the appellant  with  a  certificate granted by  the  High  Court tinder Art. 1 33 (1) (c) of the Constitution. It  is  advisable  at this stage to refer  to  the  material provisions  of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939)  which have a bearing 22 3 on  the  validity  of the order of  the  Regional  Transport

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

Authority,  Raipur dated February 24, 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 S. 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  ingraining  or  rejecting   the applications   for  stage  carriage   permits.Section     48 provides  that subject to the provision of S. 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 a specified area.  Section  57 prescribes  the  procedure in " applying  for  and  granting permits".   It  is provided by sub-s. (2) of s. 57  that  an application  for  a  stage  carriage  permit  or  a   public carrier’s  permit  shall  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  a  date for the receipt of such  applications,  on such  date.   Section 58(1) provides 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 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-s.  (3)  the   Authority   is, notwithstanding  anything contained in the first proviso  to sub-s.  (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 that section are               "(1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed,  a               permit  granted  by  the  Regional   Transport               Authority               224               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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             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(1) confers authority upon the State Government to make  rules  for  the purpose of  carying  into  effect  the provisions of Ch.  IV of the Act. 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 the  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 is no interruption in the transport service 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 interregional 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 Ch.   IV relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits                             225 apply   to   the  grant,  revocation   and   suspension   of countersignatures of permits. The High Court has held, in the present case, that an appli- cation for renewal of counter-signature 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  upon that  ground  the High Court has quashed the  order  of  the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated February 24, 1964 granting  countersignature of the permit.  It was argued  on behalf  of  the  appellant that  the  period  of  limitation prescribed  by s. 58 of the Motor Vehicle,-, Act  cannot  be applied to an application for countersignature of a  renewed permit.   It  was submitted that the  question  of  counter- signature cannot arise unless and until the permit was first renewed  and  therefore  it was erroneous  to  say  that  an application for countersignature should be made even  before the permit was renewed and within the time prescribed by  s. 58.   The  contrary  view  was  put  forward  on  behalf  of respondent  no. 2. It was contended that in the case  of  an inter-regional  route, the countersignature of the  Regional Transport Authority concerned was essential for the validity and confirmation of the grant made by the Regional Transport Authority  having  jurisdiction to grant a  permit  for  the inter-regional  route.  It was pointed out that under s.  63 (3)  of  the Motor Vehicles Act the provisions  of  Ch.   IV relating  to  grant, revocation and  suspension  of  permits apply   to   the  grant,  revocation   and   suspension   of countersignatures of permits and therefore the provisions of ss.  57  and 58 about the making of an application  for  the grant of a permit, the time within which it must be made and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

the  procedure that must be followed, apply equally  in  the matter  of the grant of countersignatures and that as s.  58 laid  down that an application for renewal of a permit  must be  made, in the case of a stage carriage permit,  not  less than   sixty  days  before  the  date  of  its  expiry,   it necessarily    followed    that    an    application     for countersignature  of the renewed permit  for  inter-regional route  had  to be made to the Regional  Transport  Authority concerned within sixty days before the date of the expiry of the permit. We  do not think it is necessary to express any  opinion  on the  contentions advanced by the parties on this  aspect  of the  case,  for  we  are  of  the  view  that  on  a  proper construction  of the rules made by the State  Government  in regard  to  the grant of permits  and  countersignatures  of inter-regional  permits  the Regional  Transport  Authority, Raipur was not competent to renew 226 the  countersignature on the permit for  tile  interregional route granted by the Regional Transport Authority,  Bilaspur in the present case.  Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940  were made  by  the appropriate authority and it is  the  admitted position  that  these  rules were at the  material  time  in operation  in  the two regions-Bilaspur and  Raipur  in  the State of Madhya Pradesh with which we are concerned.  By  r. 61 it is 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 A, B  thereof,  as               the case may be, and shall endorse Parts A and               B  accordingly  and shall return them  to  the               holder."               By r. 62 cl. (a) it is provided               "Subject   to   the  provisions  of   r.   63,               application    for    the   renewal    of    a               countersignature on a permit shall be made  to               the Regional Transport Authority concerned and               within  the appropriate periods prescribed  by               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               countersignature is required".               By r. 63 cl. (a) it is 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               countersignature of the permit (by endorsement               of  the permit in the manner set forth in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

             appropriate  form)  and shall, in  such  case,               intimate the renewal to such authority".                             227 Rule 61 substantially incorporates the provisions of  sub-s. (2)  of  s.  58 of the Motor Vehicles Act  and  the  proviso thereto,  and makes certain incidental  provisions.   Clause (a)  of r. 62 provides that the application for  renewal  of countersignature  of a permit shall be made to the  Regional Transport  Authority  concerned and within  the  appropriate period  prescribed by r. 61 but the provisions of  r.  62(a) are  subject  to the provisions of r.  63(a)  which  confers power  upon  the Authority which grants  renewal  of  inter- regional  permit  under  the  first  proviso  to  s.  45  to countersign the permit so as to make it valid for the  other region  covered by the route.  Therefore, even though by  S. 63 the power to countersign the pen-nit is entrusted to  the Regional  Transport  Authority of the region  in  which  the remaining part of the route is situate, the effect of r.  63 is that the power to countersign the permit is vested in the Authority  which  grants  the renewal of  the  permit.   The Legislature  has by providing in the opening part of  sub-s. (1)  of s. 63 "except as may be otherwise  prescribed"  made the  provision  subject  to the rules framed  by  the  State Government  under  S.  68 of the Motor  Vehicles  Act.   The provisions of r. 63, therefore, must supersede the direction contained  in  s.  63(1) of the  statute  and  the  Regional Transport  Authority, Bilaspur was competent in the  present case to grant countersignature of the pen-nit even in so far as  it  related  to the Raipur region.   On  behalf  of  the appellant attention was drawn to the expression "may" in  r. 63.   But  in the context and the language of the  rule  the word  "may"  though permissive in form, must be held  to  be obligatory.   Under r. 63 the power to grant renewal of  the countersignature  on  the  permit in  the  present  case  is conferred  on  the Regional Transport  Authority,  Bilaspur. The  exercise of such power of renewal depends not upon  the discretion  of  the  authority but upon  the  proof  of  the particular  case out of which such power arises.   "Enabling words  are  construed as compulsory whenever the  object  of the,  power is to effectuate a legal right" (See  Julius  v. Bishop of Oxford) (1).  If the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur  had  power to renew the  countersignature  on  the permit  under  r.  63, it must be  held  that  the  Regional Transport  Authority, Raipur had no such power under  r.  62 because  the  latter rule is expressly made subject  to  the provisions of rule 63, and the power granted to the Regional Transport  Authority  under  S.  62 is  taken  away  by  the provisions  of  r.  63.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the Regional  Transport Authority, Raipur was not  competent  to renew the countersignature on the permit in the present case and the Regional Transport Autho- (1)  5 A.C. 214, 244. 228 rity,   Bilaspur   was   alone  competent   to   renew   the countersignature  of the permit.  We accordingly  hold  that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur  dated February  24, 1964 granting countersignature of  the  permit was  illegal and ultra vires and was rightly quashed by  the High Court by its order dated November 13, 1964. We, therefore, confirm- the order of the High Court, but for different  reasons.   We, however, desire to make  it  clear that  our order does not affect the validity of  the  permit granted   to  the  appellant  by  the   Regional   Transport Authority,  Bilaspur  in so far as it relates to  the  route within the limits of Bilaspur region.  That is the ratio  of

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

the  decision  of  this Court  in  M/s.   Bundelkhand  Motor Transport  Company,  Nowgaon  v. Behari  Lal  Chaurasia  and anr.(1)  in  which it was pointed  out  that  inter-regional permit  when granted is valid for the region over which  the authority  granting the permit has jurisdiction even  though it  is  not countersigned by the proper  Regional  Transport Authority  with regard to the portion of the  route  outside that region. We accordingly dismiss this appeal.  There will be no  order as to costs.  We desire to express our thanks to Mr. Iyengar who acted as amicus curiae in this case. Appeal dismissed. (1) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 485. 229