http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ASHWANI KUMAR & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BIKANER AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/09/1999

BENCH: S.Saghir Ahmad, M.B.Shah

JUDGMENT:

SETHI,J.       IA  Nos.2 and 3 filed in Civil Appeal No.1122 of  1998 are  allowed.   Regional  Transport  Authority,  Bikaner  is stated  to  have  circulated  a Circular  Note  No.3537  for opening  a  route Bhadra-Delhi being the  inter-State  route lying  within  the jurisdiction of the States of  Rajasthan, Haryana and U.T.  Delhi.  Appellant Birbal applied for grant of  one stage carriage permit on the said route for which he offered  his  Bus Model No.1986.  Besides  appellant,  Abhey Singh  and  Kan  Singh also submitted applications  for  the grant  of permit on the same route.  The Regional  Transport Authority,  Bikarner  (hereinafter  referred   to  as  "RTA, Bikarner)  is stated to have resolved on 22nd November, 1993 to  open the said route but granted the permit in favour  of Abhey  Singh only for providing daily one return trip.   The appellant’s  application  was  rejected along with  one  Kan Singh.   Being aggrieved with the order of the RTA, Bikaner, the  appellant  and  Kan Singh filed separate  appeals,  the appellant’s appeal being No.64/94 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur.  The Tribunal took up both  the  appeals  together and allowed the same  vide  its order  dated 4.4.1994.  The Tribunal is stated to have  held that   the  order  of  the   RTA,  Bikaner   rejecting   the applications of the appellants before it was wrong since the vehicles  offered by both of them were within the prescribed model  in  Resolution  NO.1 of 1993 of the  State  Transport Authority.   The  RTA, Bikaner was directed to  grant  stage carriage  permit to the appellant in respect of his bus  for providing  daily  one single trip on the condition that  the permit  would be valid on obtaining counter signatures  from the  concerned  States.  The RTA, Bikaner is stated to  have issued  permit  in  favour of the appellant vide  its  order dated  3.5.1993.  Consequent upon the issuance of permit  in its  favour  the appellant is stated to have started  plying his  Vehicle  No.   RJ-07/P 0777 covered  by  route  No.172. However,  in January, 1997 appellant’s permit was  cancelled by the RTA, Bikaner purportedly consequent upon the decision of  the  Rajasthan  High  Court dated  7.7.   1995  in  Writ Petition  No.2929/94  wherein it was held that the route  in dispute did not exist before the passing of the order of the RTA,  Bikaner.   Being aggrieved with the order of the  RTA, Bikaner,  cancelling the appellant’s permit a writ  petiiton was  filed  by the appellant in the High Court of  Rajasthan submitting  therein that the judgment of the learned  Single Judge dated 31st March, 1995 passed in Civil Writ No.1877 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

1994,  confirmed  by  the Division Bench in  Special  Appeal No.361  of  1995 by its dated 7.11.1995, relied upon by  the learned  Single  Judge in his order dated 7.7.1995  in  Writ Petition  No.2929/94  had  earlier been  challenged  in  the Supreme  Court  in  SLP (C) No.18050/96  wherein  leave  was granted  on  11.8.1997 and the operation of the judgment  of the High Court stayed.  It was contended that in view of the order  of  this  Court, the cancellation of the  permit  was illegal and deserved to be quashed.  The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1988.   Special Appeal (Writ) No.862 of 1997 filed  by the  appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge was  dismissed on 22nd August, 1997.  Not satisfied with the dismissal  of  his appeal, the appellant has preferred  this appeal.   Appellants in Civil Appeal No.3341 of 1997 claimed to  have  been  granted permit for plying their  buses  from Sangaria  in Rajasthan to Delhi route.  The aforesaid  route was  claimed  to  be part of the route Ganganagar  to  Delhi which  was stated to be falling in the reciprocal  agreement between the two States.  Respondent No.2, the Rajasthan Road Transport  Corporation  filed  a writ petition in  the  High Court of Rajasthan against the grant of route permits to the appellants.   A learned Single Judge of the High Court  vide his  order  dated 31st January, 1995 set aside the order  of the  RTA,  Bikaner  granting permits to  the  appellants  on Sangaria  to  Delhi  inter- State route.  The  appeal  filed against  the  judgment  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  was dismissed  vide  the impunged judgment in this appeal.   The respondent-Corporation  in  its writ petition had  submitted that  under the Reciprocal Transport Agreement arrived at in between the States of Rajasthan and Haryana, the Corporation was   providing  services  on   the   Ganganagar-Delhi   via Hanumnagarh-  Sangaria-Dabwal-Hissar,  etc.  The  appellants had  applied  in October, 1993 for grant of  stage  carriage permits  in their favour by opening a new inter-State  route Sangaria  to  Delhi  via Dabwali-Hissar  without  mentioning therein  the  necessary particulars.  It is alleged that  on 21st  October,  1993 the RTA, Bikaner was informed that  the applicants   had   not   disclosed    the   particulars   of Sangaria-Delhi  route which was overlapping by the  notified route  and  the  details of the length of  the  route.   The Secretary,  RTA,  Bikaner vide his Circular Note dated  28th October,   1993  stated  that   all  the  three  applicants, including  the  appellants had amended applications on  27th October,  1993  for  Sangaria-Delhi inter-State route  in  a length  of 359 kilometers out of which a small portion in  a length of 3 kilometers lay in the State of Rajasthan and 323 kilometers  in the State of Haryana.  The remaining  portion of  33  kilometers  was  stated to be in  Delhi.   The  RTA, Bikaner,  after  considering the circular notes sent by  the Secretary  to  the RTA decided to open a new  Sangaria-Delhi inter-State route for which temporary stage carriage permits were  granted  to the appellants.  As noticed  earlier,  the writ  petition  was  allowed  by the  learned  Single  Judge holding  that  under the provisions of Motor  Vehicles  Act, 1988  it  was the prerogative of the two or  more  concerned States  only  to open, establish and create  an  inter-State route  lying in the respective jurisdiction by entering into a  reciprocal agreement and to get it finalised by following the  procedure  prescribed under sub- sections (5) & (6)  of Section  88  of the Act.  It was found on facts of the  case that  there  did  not exist any such agreement  amongst  the concerned  States.   The route was found to be  non-existent prior  to  the  passing of the order impugned  in  the  High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Court.   It was found that the route Sangaria-Delhi had been opened  by the RTA, Bikaner for the first time consequent to which  the  permits were granted to the appellants.  In  the absence  of any specific provision in that regard empowering the   RTA  to  open   inter-State  route  without  following procedure,  the  RTA was held to have committed  illegality. The  appellants were held to be operating on the inter-State route  in  the  absence  of  a  reciprocal  agreement  which overlapped  the  permits  granted  to  the  Corporation  for Sangaria-Delhi  inter-State  route.  Private operators  were held to have been excluded from plying their vehicles on the said  route.  The permit granted in favour of the appellants on  the  Sangaria-Delhi inter-State route was quashed.   The Division  Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge  vide judgment impugned in this appeal.  We have heard the  learned  counsel appearing for the parties and  perused the  records.  As the question of law sought to be raised is common  in  both the appeals, they are being disposed of  by this  common  judgment.  Learned counsel appearing  for  the appellants Mrs.Rani Chabra submitted that sub-Section (1) of Section   88  has  to  be  construed  independently   which, according  to  her,  did not prescribe the  existence  of  a reciprocal  arrangement  regarding   the  inter-State  route permits.   According  to her sub-sections (5) &  (6)  cannot come  in the way of RTA of a State to grant the permit in  a State  which, when granted, becomes valid in the other State upon  its being counter-signed.  Such an argument completely ignores  the opening words of the Section "except as may  be otherwise  prescribed".   Such prescribing can be by way  of the Act itself or by rules framed under it.  Sub-section (5) provides  that a 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  Government concerned  in their official gazette and in any one or  more 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  representation  in connection therewith may be submitted and the date not being less  than thirty days from the date of publication on which the Authority by which, and the time and place at which, the proposal  and  any  representation  received  in  connection therewith will be considered.  Sub-section (6) provides that every  agreement arrived at between the States shall, in  so far  as  it  relates  to the grant  of  countersignature  of permits,  be  published  by each of  the  State  Governments concerned  in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the  newspapers in the regional language circulating in  the area  or  route  covered  by the  agreement  and  the  State Transport  Authority of the State and the Regional Transport Authority  concerned  shall  given effect to  it.   The  Act envisages  three  categories of permit-seekers,  namely  (i) Inter-region,  (ii)  Intra-region   and  (iii)  inter-State. Different criteria and procedure has been provided under the Act  for  granting  permits  in   respect  of  each  of  the categories.   The grant of inter-State permits with which we are concerned in these appeals are permissible under Section 88(5)  of the Act.  The existence of a route is a  condition precedent for exercise of the power under Sub-section (1) of Section  88 of the Act.  Intra State route under the  scheme of  the Act has to be recriprocal and cannot be unilaterally created  by  one  State or an Authority in the  State.   The concerned  State Governments are supposed to deliberate  and decide  the  routes  to be opened as inter-State  routes  by determining  the  number  of trips each route  to  have  and

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

prescribe other conditions for the smooth functioning of the Act to achieve its objective which is claimed to be a social welfare  legislation.   It  has to be noted that  the  Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939  which  related to  the  law  of  motor vehicles was amended from time to time to keep it upto date. Various committees like National Transport Policy Committee, National  Police  Commission,  Road  Safety  Committee,  Low Powered  Two  Wheelers Committee and the Law  Commission  of India  examined different aspects of the road transport  and recommended  updating, simplification and rationalisation of the  law  relating to motor vehicles.  A working  group  was constituted in January, 1984 to review all the provisions of the  Act  No.4  of 1939 and to submit  draft  proposals  for comprehensive  legislation  to  replace  the  existing  law. After  considering the recommendations of the working  group and  obtaining the comments of the State Governments it  was decided to make important modifications in the Act by taking care  of the fast increasing of both commercial vehicles and personal  vehicles in the country, the need to encourage the adoption  of  high  technology  in  automotive  sector,  the greater  flow of passenger and freight, the concern of  road safety  standards, pollution control measures, standards  of transportation  of  hazardous and explosive  materials,  the parameters  where the private and public sector can co-exist and  develop and for effective ways of tracking down traffic offenders.   A Bill was moved in the Parliament for  seeking to  achieve  the  objectives detailed in  the  statement  of objects  and reasons.  The Act was thereafter passed on 14th October,  1988.  Accepting the submissions made on behalf of the  appellants would result in frustration of the objective sought to be achieved by the Act.  The interpretation put by the  High  Court  is rationale, legal and  proper.   In  the absence  of existence of inter-State route, the  authorities under  the Act were not justified in granting the permits to the  appellants.   The existence of permit depends upon  the reciprocal  agreements  between  the States covered  by  the route  which, admittedly, did not exist in the instant case. The orders of the Authority granting permit in favour of the appellants  were  thus  without   jurisdiction.   Under  the circumstances  the appeals are dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.500/- each.