http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI NOOR MOHAMMAD

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/08/1972

BENCH: PALEKAR, D.G. BENCH: PALEKAR, D.G. HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1973 AIR 2729            1973 SCR  (1) 841  1972 SCC  (2) 454

ACT: Motor  Vehicles  Act (4 of 1939) ss. 43 and  44(3)  (b)-When State  Transport  Authority  can  take  over  functions   of Regional Transport Authority.

HEADNOTE: The-respondent  submitted  an application  to  the  Regional Transport Authority for the grant of a stage carriage permit on  an inter-regional and inter-state route.   The  Regional Transport  Authority declined to consider  the  application, because,  by a resolution of the State Transport  Authority, the State Transport Authority took over the functions of the Regional  Transport  Authority with  regard  to  inter-state routes.  In a writ petition filed by the respondent the High Court  held,  (1)  that  under s. 44(3)  (b)  of  the  Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939,  the  State  Transport  Authority  was entitled  to  perform  the duties of  a  Regional  Transport Authority  in only two cases, namely, (a) where there is  no Regional  Transport  Authority  in a region  and  the  State Transport  Authority thinks it fit to perform the duties  of the  Regional Transport Authority and (b) when the  Regional Transport Authority is functioning only in respect of inter- regional routes and on the request of the Regional Transport Authority;  and  (2)  that  the  resolution  of  the   State Transport  Authority  taking  over  the  functions  of   the Regional  Transport Authority was contrary to the  direction given  by  the State under s. 43 the High  Court  therefore, directed the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of  the application of the respondent. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : ( 1) Under s. 44(3) (b) the State Transport Authority is entitled to perform the duties of the Regional  Transport Authority in three contingencies, namely (a) where there  is no  Regional Transport Authority functioning, (b)  when  the State  Transport  Authority thinks, it fit  to  perform  the duties of the Regional transport Authority in respect of any route common to two or more regions, and (c) where the State Transport  Authority is requested by the Regional  Transport Authority  to perform those duties in respect of  an  inter- regional route. [845H-846A] There is no limitation in the case of the first contingency.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

When a Regional Transport Authority is not functioning.  the State  Transport  Authority shall perform the  duties  of  a Regional Transport Authority, The provisions of the Act with regard  to issue of permits are in the public interest,  and it will lead to great public inconvenience if in the absence of  the  Regional  Transport Authority the  public  is  left entirely  to  the  mercy of the  State  Transport  Authority whether  it  will  exercise its discretion  to  perform  the duties  of  the Regional Transport Authority  or  not.   The other  two  contingencies however limited in  their  ’scope. Since  the State Transport Authority is for the whole  State and  has  wider  jurisdiction  than  the  separate  regional authorities it may in a fit case take over the functions  of the  Regional Transport Authority with regard to  any  route common to two or more region-, and similarly, when a request is  made  by  the Regional  Transport  Authority  the  State Transport Authority would be entitled to perform the  duties of the Regional Transport Authority in respect of an  inter- regional  route.   Since  two  types  of   contingencies-one unlimited in 842 scope  and the other limited-are combined in One  Place  the word  ’and’ has been used after the first contingency.   The High Court’s construction of the section that there are only two contingencies as mentioned by it is erroneous. [846C-H]; 847A-C] Poonam  Chand  v. State of Rajasthan, I.L.R. 11  Raj.  1031, approved. (2)  But  this power under el. (b) could only be  discharged by  the  State  Transport  Authority,  (i)  subject  to  any directions  given to it under S. 43 of the Act by the  State Government, and (ii) save as otherwise expressly provided by or under the Act. [847D-E] (a)  It   cannot  be  contended  that  since  the   Regional Transport Authority is a separate authority on which  duties referred to in el. (b) have been imposed by other provisions of  the Act there is express provision by or under  the  Act and  that therefore the State Transport Authority  would  be disentitled to take over these functions.  If the expression is so construed the very object of the clause providing  for the exercise by the State Transport Authority of the  powers of  the  Regional Transport Authority would  be  frustrated. Therefore, the expression "save as otherwise, expressly pro- vided  by  or under the-Act." would, in  the  context,  mean "save as expressly barred by or under the Act." Since  there is  no express provision which bars the performance  by  the State  Transport Authority of the duties referred to in  el. (b), the State Transport Authority would not, be barred from performing those duties. [847F-H; 848A-C] (b)  However,  s.  44(3) provides that the  State  Transport Authority is required to give effect to any direction issued by  the  State  Government.  The  section  gives  the  State Government  power to control road transport and to that  end is  entitled,  from  time to time, by  notification  in  the Official Gazette, to issue directions to the State Transport Authority in four specified cases.  One of them is contained in  el.  (iv) of sub-s. (1), and, in the present  case,  the State  Government  has, by notification,  issued  directions under  that sub-section to the State Transport Authority  to the  effect  that the Regional Transport  Authority  was  to invite  applications  for grant of  permits  on  inter-state routes  or  to select applicants for the grant  of  permits. This  direction is binding on the State Transport  Authority and since it has to give effect to the direction, it  cannot ’function contrary to it.  Therefore, the resolution of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

State  Transport Authority taking over the functions of  the Regional  Transport  Authority with  regard  to  inter-state routes  was  contrary to the direction  and  hence  invalid. [848C-H; 849A-C]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C. A. No. 1882 (N) of 1970. Appeal  by  special leave from the Judgment and  order  date April  14, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.W.P.  No. 453 of 1969. Narayan Sinha, Solicitor-General for India and and K. Baldev Mehta for the appellants. B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Palekar,  J. Orders have been already passed dismissing  the appeal and the reasons will be given now.                             843 This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High  Court of  Rajasthan  in  Writ  Petition  No.  453  of  1969.   The respondent Noor Mohammad, a resident of Jaipur, submitted an application   on   11-3-1968  to  the   Regional   Transport Authority,  Jaipur, for the grant of a  non-temporary  stage carriage  permit  on  Jaipur  Rohtak  route  via   Shahpura- Katpulli, Behror-Jahar-Rewari.  Objections were invited  but no objections were filed.  Besides the respondent,  however, the  State Road Transport Corporation and two other  persons had  applied for the grant of permit on this  route.   These two other persons were also absent.  Only the respondent and the  Corporation  were  present.   The  Regional   Transport Authority  did not take the application of  ,the  respondent into  consideration by reason of a resolution passed by  the State  Transport Authority, Rajasthan, which was  in  force. That  Resolution dated January 27,1969 and numbered  Tr.S.T. A/69/31743  was duly notified and published on  February  6, 1969 as follows               "In  exercise of the powers under  section  44               and section 3(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act the               State Transport Authority, Rajasthan  resolves               that   with  effect  from  the  date  of   the               publication of this resolution in the official               Gazette,  (1)  The State  Transport  Authority               shall hereinafter grant all types of  permits,               renewals, transfers etc. on inter-regional and               inter-statal  routes.   In  respect  of  these               routes State Transport Authority shall perform               all the duties hitherto being performed by the               Regional Transport Authority; (2) All types of               permits   on  inter-statal  routes  shall   be               countersigned    by   the   State    Transport               Authority." Relying  principally  on the above resolution  the  Regional Transport Authority Jaipur, declined to consider the respon- dent’s  application, which it is admitted, was for an  inter regional and inter-state route. Aggrieved  by the decision, the respondent filed  the  above Writ   Petition  challenging  the  validity  of  the   above resolution of the State Transport Authority.  The  challenge was  two-fold.  One was that under Chapter IV of  the  Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939 dealing with the control  of  transport vehicles it was the Regional Transport Authority which could entertain  such an application and not the  State  Transport Authority.   It was true that under section 44(3) the  State Transport  Authority was entitled to perform the  duties  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

the Regional Transport under certain conditions but this was not a case answering those conditions.  In the second place, it  was  contended that there was an agreement  between  the States  of Rajasthan and Haryana about the grant  of  Inter- State Permits and to order to give effect to that agree- 844 ment, the State Government had issued to the State Transport Authority  on  December 14, 1966 a direction  under  section 43(1)  of  the  Motor Vehicles Act to the  effect  that  the Regional Transport Authority was to invite applications  for stage carriage or public carrier Permits and that it had  to select applications for the grant of permits keeping in view the  conditions  laid  down by  the  Inter  State  Transport Commission  in  this behalf.  The cases  of  these  selected candidates  were  then  to  be  referred  to  the  Transport authorities  of the other Sates concerned for  granting  the counter-signature  under  the agreement.  It  was  contended that  the State Transport Authority was bound to  obey  this direction issued by the State Government under section 43(1) with  regard  to  the  grant of  Inter  State  permits  and, therefore, ;the resolution of the State Transport  Authority dated  January  27, 1960 was illegal being contrary  to  the direction given by the State. The  contention  of the respondent was upheld  by  the  High Court  on both these grounds and a direction was  issued  to the   Regional  Transport  Authority  to  dispose   of   the application  of  the respondent for the grant of  permit  on Jaipur-Rohtak route in accordance with the law.  It is  from this Order that the present appeal has been filed. Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contains detailed provisions  with  regard to the control of  the  control  of transport   vehicles.   Two   transport   authorities    are constituted  under section 44.  One is the  State  Transport Authority which is constituted for the whole State and it is to exercise and discharge,the powers and functions specified in  sub-section  (3)  The other authority  is  the  Regional Transport  Authority. The area of the State is divided  into regions  and  a  region is allotted to the  control  of  the Regional Authority. These Regional Transport Authorities had to  exercise the powers and functions conferred On  them  by several other sections in Chapter IV.  Sub-sections (3) &(4) of Section 44 are as follows;               (3)   A State Transport Authority (shall  give               effect ,to any directions issued under Section               43, and subject to such directions and save as               otherwise provided by or under this Act) shall               exercise  and discharge throughout  the  State               the following powers and functions, namely:-               (a)   to   co-ordinate   and   regulate    the               activities   and  policies  of  the   Regional               Transport Authorities if any, of the State;               (b)   to  perform  the duties  of  a  Regional               Transport  Authority where there is  no   such               Authority                                    845               and,  if it thinks fit or if so required by  a               Regional Transport Authority, to perform those               duties  in respect of any route common to  two               or more regions;               (c)   to  settle all disputes and decides  all               matters on which differences of opinion  arise               between Regional Transport Authorities; and               (d)   to  discharge such either  functions  as               may be prescribed.                (4)  For   the  purpose  of  exercising   and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

             discharging the powers and functions specified               in   sub-section   (3),  a   State   Transport               Authority  may, subject to such conditions  as               may  be  prescribed, issue directions  to  any               Regional Transport Authority and the  Regional               Transport Authority shall (in the discharge of               its  functions under this Act, give effect  to               and) be guided by such directions." It  is  clear  from  the above  provisions  that  the  State Transport   Authority   is   a   superior   Authority   with jurisdiction over the whole of the State while the  Regional Transport   Authority   is  subordinate  to  it   with   its jurisdiction  generally confined to the region for which  it is appointed.  It is also clear from sub-section (3)  clause (b)  that  the  State Transport Authority  can  perform  the duties  and  functions of the Regional  Transport  Authority under certain circumstances.  The High Court has held on the construction   of  clause  (b)  aforesaid  that  the   State Transport  Authority is entitled to perform the duties of  a Regional  Transport Authority in only two cases  namely  (1) Where  there is no Regional Transport Authority in a  region and  the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to  perform the  duties  of the Regional Transport  Authority,  and  (2) where  the Regional Transport Authority is  functioning  the State Transport Authority can discharge the functions of the Regional  Transport  Authority  only in  respect  of  inter- regional routes and on the request of the Regional Transport Authority.  In thus construing section 44(3) (b) the learned Judges have departed from the view taken by that High  Court earlier in Poonam Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Another(’- ).   It was held in that case that the provision in  section 44 (3) (b) contemplated three contingencies under which  the State Transport Authority can act to perform ’the duties  of the  Regional Transport Authority, viz. (1 ) where there  is no  such authority; (2) Where the State Transport  Authority itself thinks fit to perform those duties in respect of  any route common to two or more regions; and (3) where the State Transport (1)  I.L.R. It Raj 1031. 846 Authority is so required by the Regional Transport Authority to Perform those duties in respect of any such common route. We do not think that there was any sufficient reason for the learned  Judges in the present case to depart from the  view which  ,had been taken by an earlier division bench of  that court.   Moreover, neither grammar nor  convenience  compels the  construction adopted by the learned Judges.  The  State Transport Authority is a superior Authority, and if for  any reason  no Regional Transport Authority is functioning,  one does  not see why the duties and functions of  the  Regional Transport  Authority should not be left to be  performed  by the  State Transport Authority.  The provisions in  the  Act with regard to the issue of permits and the like are made in the public interest and it will lead to great  inconvenience if  in  the absence of a Regional  Transport  Authority  the public  should  be entirely left to the mercy of  the  State Transport Authority whether it will exercise its  discretion to  perform  the  duties  and  functions  of  the   Regional Transport  Authority  or  not.  In our  opinion,  the  first contingency  is the one when a Regional Transport  Authority is not functioning.  In that contingency, all the duties and functions  of the Regional Transport Authority are  expected to be carried out by the State Transport Authority.  Then we have  two  more contingencies in which the  State  Transport Authority  may  take over the duties and  functions  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

Regional  Transport  Authority.   Both  these  contingencies arise  in  a  situation where the  duties  of  the  Regional Transport  Authority have to be performed in respect of  any route   common   to  two  or  more   regions.    These   two contingencies  are  (2)  if  it thinks fit,  or  (3)  if  so required  by  the Regional Transport Authority,  to  perform those  duties in respect of any route,common to two or  more regions.   In  other words, we have to read  the  words  "to Perform  those duties etc." once after the word "fit" and  a second time after the words "Regional Transport  Authority." That  will explain the importance of the  conjunction  "and" which  is  found  in sub-clause (b) after  the  words  "such authority".   The first contingency brooks of no  limitation while contingencies (2) and (3) are limited in scope.  Since these two types of contingencies-one unlimited and the other limited  were  combined into one place, the word  ’and’  has been   used  after  the  first  contingency.    The   second contingency  takes into account the authority of  the  State Transport  Authority  to take over the  specific  duties  of Regional Transport Authority with Since the State regard  to a common route if it thinks fit. Transport Authority is  for the  whole  State  and has a  wider  jurisdiction  than  the separate  regional  authorities, it is only To  be  expected that the state Transport Authority may, in a fit case,  take over the functions of the Regional Transport Authority  with regard  to  any route common to two or  more  regions.   The third contigency is also a matter of convenience. 847 A  Regional  Transport Authority, though  clothed  with  the powers to issue permits with regard to a route common to two or   more  regions,  may  for  several  reasons   think   it appropriate  that  his  function may  be  more  conveniently performed by the State Transport Authority being a  superior Authority with jurisdiction over the several regions and  in such a case when a request is made by the Regional Transport Authority,  the State Transport Authority would be  entitled to  perform the duties of the Regional Transport  Authority. In our opinion, the view which found favour with the learned Judges  with  regard to the construction of  clause  (b)  is erroneous, and the State Transport Authority is entitled  to perform  the duties of the Regional Transport Authority  (i) where  there  is  no such authority;  (ii)  when  the  State Transport  Authority thinks it fit to perform the duties  of the  Regional  Transport Authority in respect of  any  route common  to  two  or more regions or (iii)  where  the  State Transport  Authority is required by the  Regional  Transport Authority  to perform those duties in respect of  any  route common to two or more regions. This power under clause (b), however, is subject to  certain limitations.  Sub-section (3) begins with the words "A State Transport  Authority  shall give effect  to  any  directions issued under section 43, and subject to such directions  and save  as  ,otherwise  provided by or under  this  Act  shall exercise  and discharge throughout the State  the  following powers and functions, including those in sub-clause (b).  It is clear, therefore, that the functions under sub-clause (b) could be discharged by the State Transport Authority subject to  directions given to it under section 43 of the  Act  and save  as  otherwise provided by or under the  Act.   In  the present case it is urged that directions have been issued by the  State Government under section 43.  We shall deal  with this  point in another place.  The other limitation is  that the  State Transport Authority could perform the  duties  of the  Regional Transport Authority under sub-clause (b)  save as  otherwise  provided by or under this Act.  It  was  con-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

tended  that the Regional Transport Authority is a  separate authority on which the duties referred to in clause (b) have been  imposed by other provisions in Chapter TV,  and  since the  State  Transport Authority is required to act  save  as otherwise  provided  by  or  under  the  Act"  it  would  be disentitled to take over the functions under sub-clause (b). Such  an  interpretation  would  obviously  lead  to   grave incongruity.   Sub-clause  (b),  as we  have  already  seen, provides  for  the exercise of- the powers of  the  Regional Transport  Authority  by the State  Transport  Authority  in certain contingencies.  If the expression "save as otherwise provided  by or under the Act" is construed in a  manner  to negative  the  function,,; permitted to be  performed  under subclause  (b),  the very object with which  sub-clause  (b) have been accordance with the directions issued by the State Government 848 enacted will be frustrated.  We have, therefore, to construe the  expression.  ’,’save as otherwise provided by or  under the  Act" in a harmonious manner so that sub-clause  (b)  is not  reduced  to a nullity.  In our opinion  the  expression "save  as otherwise provided by or under the Act"  would  in the context mean, "save as expressly barred by or under  the Act".   If there is a provision which expressly debarrs  the exercise  of the power under subclause (b) in any case  then only  the  State  Transport Authority will not  be  able  to exercise  the  power and discharge ;the functions  given  in sub-clause  (b).  Otherwise there would be no such bar.   It is not shown to us that there is any express provision which bars the performance by the State Transport Authority of the duties referred to in sub-clause (b) and, therefore, we  are of  the  view  that the State Transport  Authority  in  this particular  case  would not be barred  from  performing  the duties under sub-clause (b). That   brings  us  to  the  second  ground  on   which   the respondent’s  request was granted.  Section  44(3)  provides that a State Transport Authority is required lo give  effect to  any  direction  issued under section  43  and  would  be entitled to exercise and discharge the powers and  functions in  sub-clauses  (a)  (b) (c) and (d) subject  to  any  such directions.  Section 43 gives the State Government the power to  control road transport and to that end is entitled  from time  to  time by notification in the  official  Gazette  to issue  directions  to  the State Transport  Authority  in  4 specified cases.  One of them is contained in clause (iv) of sub-section  (1).  The State Government is entitled to  give direction  to  the State Transport Authority  regarding  any matter which may appear to the State Government necessary or expedient  for giving effect to any agreement  entered  into with the Central Government or any other State Government or the  Government  or  any  other  country  relating  to   the regulation  of motor transport generally, and in  particular to  its co-ordination with other means of transport and  the conveying  of  long  distance  goods  traffic.   It  is  not disputed  before us that the State Government  of  Rajasthan has   by  notification  dated  December  14,   1966   issued directions under section 43 (1) (iv) to the State  Transport Authority   to  the  effect  that  the  Regional   Transport Authority was to invite applications for grant of permits on inter-state  routes or to select applications for the  grant of  permit.   Now  this direction is binding  on  the  State Transport Authority and since it has to give effect to  this direction,  it cannot function contrary to  this  direction. It  is  obvious  that the resolution  passed  by  the  State Transport  Authority  on January 27, 1969 by which  it  took

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

over the functions of the Regional Transport Authority  with regard to interstate routes contrary to this direction  and, therefore,  to that extent was invalid.  It is also  not  in dispute  that the rout with which we are concerned, is  also an inter-state route and, therefore, in 849 it  was the Regional Transport Authority alone  which  could have  exercised  the functions with regard to the  grant  of permits  on inter-state routes and not the  State  Transport Authority.  This position is not contested before, us by the learned  Solicitor  General  appearing  on  behalf  of   the appellants.  His main complaint in the appeal before us  was that  the High Court had interpreted section 44(3)(b)  in  a manner which would have created grave public  inconvenience. That was the chief reason why the appellants felt  compelled to come to this Court. The  final  order  passed by the High  Court  requiring  the Regional  Authority  to proceed in accordance  with  law  is correct.  In the circumstances of the case the appeal had to be dismissed with no order as to costs.  That order has been already passed on 20-7-1972. V.P.S.                                                Appeal dismissed. 850