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

PETITIONER: M/S.  BUNDELKHAND MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY, NOWGAON

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BEHARI LAL CHIAURASIA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/08/1965

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. HIDAYATULLAH, M. SIKRI, S.M.

CITATION:  1966 AIR  455            1966 SCR  (1) 485  CITATOR INFO :  F          1966 SC1318  (6)  R          1978 SC 215  (34)  R          1988 SC1676  (8)

ACT: Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), s. 63 and Central  Provinces and  Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, r. 63 made  under  s. 68-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  had a permit under the Motor  Vehicles  Act, 1939,  to apply stage carriages on an inter-regional  route. The permit was granted by the Regional Transport  Authority, Jabalpur,  and was countersigned by the  Regional  Transport Authority of the Rewa region.  The appellant applied to  the R.T.A.,  Jabalpur, for renewal of the permit and the  permit was    renewed.     The   appellant   also    applied    for countersignature  of  the renewal, to  the  same  authority, under rule 63, framed under s., 68 of the Act, for plying in the  Rewa  region; but the application  wag  rejected.   The appellant  then applied to the R.T.A., Rewa, to  countersign the  renewed the lesser offences were chosen to  bypass  the Sessions  Judge who had permit, and that  authority  granted countersignature of the permit overruling the objections  of the first respondent.  The first respondent therefore  moved the  High Court and the High Court quashed the order of  the R.T.A., R.T.A Rewa. In the appeal to this Court, HELD : The Legislature has, by providing in the opening part of  a.  63(1)  of  the Act,  "Except  as  may  otherwise  be prescribed", made the provision subject to the rules  framed under s. 68, and a rule conferring authority to  countersign the  permit in so far as it relates to another region,  upon the R.T.A. who issues the permit is made, in r. 63(a).   The power to frame the rules is expressly granted by s. 68,  and the exercise of that power for the purpose of carrying  into effect  the  provisions of the Act, is not  subject  to  any other  implied  limitations.  Therefore r. 63  must  prevail over s. 63.  [491 C-E]

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

When  the  R.T.A.,  Jabalpur, renewed  the  permit  for  the Jabalpur  region,  region but declined  to  countersign  the permit,  in exercise of the power conferred conferred by  r. 63  in  respect  of  the  route  in  the  Rewa  region,  the conclusion is infusion is     editable  that  the  Authority granted  the permit operative only in the  Jabalpur  region. The permit being only a regional permit, there was no has no part  of  the route for which the R.T.A.,  Rewa,  could,  by countersigning   the  permit  extend it so  as  to  make  it operative in the Rewa region.  In region.  In any event,  as one R.T.A is not competent to sit in judgment over the dicer the  discretion exercised by another R.T.A., upon  whom  the power  is  conferred in regard particular matter  under  the statute,  the  order of the R.T.A.,  the  R.T.A.,Rewa,  gray countersignature  in the teeth of the earlier order  of  the consider  of the R.T.A., Jabalpur, was invalid.   But.  that did  not affect the validity of the validity of  the  permit granted  by the R.T.A., Jabalpur, for the  Jabalpur  region. [491 F; region [491 F; 492 D-G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 51 of 65. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated November 11,  1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc,.  Petition No. 238 of 1964. 486 G.   S. Pathak and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. B.   R. L. Iyengar, Manmohan Krishnan Kaul, S. K.  Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the respondent No. 1. S.   V.  Gupte, Solicitor-General and I. N. Shroff, for  the intervener. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. In 1957 the Regional Transport Authority,  Jabalpur granted  to  Messrs.  Bundelkhand Motor  Transport  Company, Nowgaon-hereinafter called ’the appellants permit under  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to ply stage carriages on an inter- regional route-Jabalpur to Chhatarpur-in the State of Madhya Pradesh,  and the permit was countersigned by  the  Regional Transport  Authority, Rewa within whose jurisdiction a  part of  the  route lay.  The permit was renewed in  1960  for  a period  of  three years expiring on August 9,  1963  by  the Regional  Transport Authority, Jabalpur, and it was  counter signed  by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa.  On  June 7,  1963  the appellant applied to  the  Regional  Transport Authority, Jabalpur for renewal of the permit, and by  order dated December 6, 1963 the permit was renewed for the period ending February 9, 1966.  By its application dated  December 7,  1963  the  appellant requested  the  Regional  Transport Authority, Rewa to countersign the permit so renewed.   This application was published as required by s. 57 read with  s. 63(3) of the Act on January 2, 1964.  Three motor  transport operators, amongst whom was the first respondent Behari  Lal Chaurasia, objected to the grant of counter-signature to the permit,  inter alia, on the ground that the application  was barred  by  the  law of limitation prescribed  by  s.  58(2) proviso one, and the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa  had no  power  to grant counter-signature of renewal  after  the expiry  of that period.  The Regional  Transport  Authority, Rewa  overruled the objection, and by order dated March  17, 1964 granted counter-signature of the permit. The  first  respondent  then applied to the  High  Court  of Madhya Pradesh under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution for a writ quashing the order dated March 17, 1964 passed by the

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

Regional Transport Authority, Rewa.  In the view of the High Court  an  application  for renewal of  the  permit  and  an application  for renewal of counter-signature must  be  made within the period prescribed by S. 58(2) of the Act, and the appellant  having  failed to apply within that  period,  the application of the appellant  487 for  renewal  of the counter-signature was  barred  and  the Regional  Transport Authority, Rewa had no  jurisdiction  to countersign  the  permit renewed by the  Regional  Transport Authority, Jabalpur.  The High Court accordingly quashed the order dated March 17, 1964.  With certificate granted by the High  Court  under Art. 133(1)(c) of the  Constitution,  the appellant has appealed to this Court. It  may be convenient in the first instance to refer to  the material  provisions  of the Motor Vehicles Act  4  of  1939 which  have  a bearing on the validity of  the  order  dated March  17,  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  in  granting  or  rejecting  the applications  for  stage carriage permits.  By s. 48  it  is provided  that  subject  to  the  provisions  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  specified  area. Sub-,section (3) of s. 48 authorises the Authority to  grant a  stage  carriage  permit subject to one  or  more  of  the conditions  specified  therein.  Section 57  prescribes  the procedure  in  "applying  for  and  granting  permits".   An application for a stage carriage permit or a public carriers permit shall, it is provided by sub-s. (2), 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   dates  for  the   receipt   of   such applications,  on such dates.  By sub-s. (1) of s. 58 it  is provided 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  not  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,  pro- vided that the application for the renewal of a permit shall be  made  (a) in the case of a stage carriage  permit  or  a public L7Sup.165-3 488 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

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

not  more  than  fifteen days after  the  said  last   date. Section   63  deals  with  inter-regional  and   inter-State permits. The material parts of the section are as under :-               (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a               permit  granted  by  the  Regional   Transport               Authority of any one region shall not be valid               in  any other  region, unless the  permit  has               been  countersigned by the Regional  Transport               Authority  of that other region, and a  permit               granted in any one State shall not be valid in               any  other State unless countersigned  by  the               State Transport Authority of that other  State               or   by  the  Regional   Transport   Authority               concerned                Provided               (2) A Regional Transport Authority when coun-               ter-signing  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               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   counter-signatures   of               permits      Provided      Section 68  by  the first  sub-section  authorises  the               State Government to make rules for the purpose               of carrying into effect the provisions of  Ch.               IV. 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 renewal as if it were an application for a permit. The  489 procedure  for  obtaining  renewal  is  assimilated  to  the procedure prescribed for an application for a first  permit, but in order that there may be no hiatus 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 inter-regional  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 apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of counter signatures of permits. The  High  Court  held that an application  for  renewal  of countersignature  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  on  that   ground discharged  the  order  issued  by  the  Regional  Transport Authority,  Rewa.  it was urged on behalf of  the  appellant that  by  s.  63(3)  the provisions  contained  in  Ch.   IV relating to grant. revocation and suspension of permits  are

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

made  applicable to grant of countersignatures  of  permits, and  to  the application for countersignature of  an  inter- regional permit the provisions relating to renewal contained in  s. 58 have no application.  Counsel for  the  respondent submitted  that a permit granted by an  Authority  competent under s. 45 of the Act is an integrated permit in respect of a  unitary route, and until the permit is  countersigned  by the Authority in the other region, it is wholly ineffective. We  do not think it necessary to express any opinion on  the contentions  advanced  by the parties on this  part  of  the case,  for  we,  are of the view that  this  appeal  may  be decided on the interpretation of the rules made by the State Government  in  regard  to grant  of  permits  and  counter- signature  of  inter-regional  permits.   Under  the   Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939 the Central Provinces and  Berar  Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 were made by the appropriate  authority and  it  is  common  ground that those  rules  were  at  the material time in operation in the two regions--Jabalpur  and Rewa-in  the  State  of Madhya Pradesh, with  which  we  are concerned.  By r. 61, it was 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               490               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  pen-nit,  and  shall  be  ac-               companied  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 B thereof, as  the               case  may be, and shall endorse Parts A and  B               accordingly  and  shall  return  them  to  the               holder."               Rule 62, by cl. (a) provided               "Subject   to  the  provisions  of  rule   63,               application  for  the renewal  of  a  counter-               signature on a permit shall be made in writing               to the Regional Transport Authority  concerned               and within the appropriate periods  prescribed               in   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 counter-signature is required."               Rule 63, by cl. (a), 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               appropriate  Form)  and shall, in  such  case,               intimate the renewal to Such authority." Rule 61 substantially incorporates the provisions of  sub-s. (2)  of  S. 58 and the proviso thereto,  and  makes  certain incidental  provisions.  By cl. (a) of r. 62 it is  provided that the application for renewal of counter-signature has to

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

be made within the period prescribed in r. 61 i.e. it has to be  made  not less than two months before the  expiry  of  a stage  carriage permit or a public carrier’s permit.  By  r. 63,  power is conferred upon the Authority which  grants  an inter-regional  permit  under the first proviso  to  s.  45, (unless by any general or special order the other  Authority has directed otherwise) to countersign the permit 491 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  permit  is  entrusted  to  the   Regional Transport  Authority  of the region in which  the  remaining part  of  the  route  is situate, by  r.  63  the  power  to countersign  may  also  be exercised by  the  Authority  who grants   the  original  permit.   The   Regional   Transport Authority, Jabalpur was therefore competent to grant renewal of the permit and was also competent by virtue of rule 63 to countersign the permit so as to make it valid even for  that part of the route which lay in the Rewa region. The Legislature has by providing in the opening part of sub- s. (1) "Except as may be otherwise prescribed" made the pro- vision  subject to the rules framed under s. 68, and a  rule conferring authority to countersign the permit in so far  as it  relates to another region upon the Authority who  issues the permit is made.  The validity of a section which is made subject  to  the provisions of the rules to be framed  by  a piece of delegated legislation is not challenged before  us. Rule  63  must therefore prevail over the direction  of  the statute.  There is no substance in the contention raised  by counsel  for the appellant that the State Government had  no power  to frame rule 63.  Power to frame rules for  carrying into  effect the provisions of Ch.  IV is expressly  granted to  the State Government by s. 68, and the exercise of  that power,  if it be utilised for the purpose of  carrying  into effect  the  provisions of the Act, is not  subject  to  any other implied limitations. In the present case an application for counter-signature  of renewal  of  the permit was made to the  Regional  Transport Authority, Jabalpur, and it was rejected.  It is unfortunate that the application and the reasons in support of the order of the Authority ire not on the record of the case.  But  it appears clear from the following recital in the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, that the application for countersignature  was made to the Authority at Jabalpur  and it was rejected "Need  for  moving this authority for getting  the  counter- signature  renewed certainly arose when the R.T.A.  Jabalpur declined to sanction the renewal of counter-signature." Truth  of  this recital is accepted by counsel at  the  Bar. The  result therefore is that an application was made  under s.  63  read  with  s.  58(2)  to  the  Regional   Transport Authority,  Jabalpur for renewal of the permit and also  for counter-signature of 492 the   renewal  of  the  permit.   The   Regional   Transport Authority,  Jabalpur  granted  renewal of  the  permit,  but declined to grant countersignature of the permit, insofar as it related to the Rewa region.  Under S. 63 a permit granted by  the  Regional Transport Authority of one region  is  not valid  in  any  other region, unless  the  permit  has  been countersigned  by the Regional ’Transport Authority of  that other region.  The clearest implication of this provision is that even an inter-regional permit when -ranted is valid for the region over which the Authority granting the permit  has jurisdiction,  and when it is countersigned by the  Regional

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

Transport Authority of the other region, the permit  becomes valid  for  the entire route.  We are unable to  agree  with counsel  for the respondent that the permit has no  validity Whatever until it is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region. The  Regional  Transport  Authority,  Jabalpur  renewed  the permit for ’the Jabalpur region, but declined to countersign the  permit  in  exercise of the power conferred  by  r.  63 framed  under s. 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect  of the  route  within  the  Rewa  region.   The  conclusion  is inevitable  that  the  Authority  granted  the  permit  only operative between Jabalpur and the point at which the  route entered the Rewa region : in substance, he merely granted  a regional  permit  limited to the route within  the  Jabalpur region.   The  per,-nit being a regional permit and  not  an inter-regional  permit, there was no part of the  route  for which  the  Regional  Transport  Authority,  Rewa  could  by countersigning  the  permit  extend  it so  as  to  make  it operative  within  the  Rewa region.  In any  event  as  one Regional  Transport  Authority is not competent  to  sit  in judgment over the discretion exercised by any other Regional Transport  Authority  upon whom the power  is  conferred  in regard to a particular matter under the statue, the order of the    Regional   Transport   Authority,    Rewa    granting countersignature  in the teeth of the earlier order  of  the Jabalpur Authority was invalid. We  therefore confirm the order of the High Court,  but  for different  reasons.  We deem it, however, necessary to  make it clear that our order does not affect the validity of  the permit   -ranted  by  the  Regional   Transport   Authority, Jabalpur,  insofar  as  it  relates  to  the  route  between Jabalpur  and the point of entry of the route into the  Rewa region.  The appellant will pay the costs to the  respondent in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.