http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

PETITIONER: S. KANNAN & OTHERS ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATEROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1983

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1065            1983 SCR  (3) 740  1984 SCC  (1) 375        1983 SCALE  (2)212  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1984 SC1244  (2)

ACT:      Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939-Sec.  63(7)-All India Tourist Permit.  Sec.  62-  Interpretation  of.  Sec.  62  does  not comprehend  power  to  grant  temporary  all  India  Tourist Permit-Expression Regional  Transport Authority  in Sec.  62 does not  comprehend State  Transport Authority.  Sec. 62(1) does not  provide for  grant of  temporary  permits  pending grant of a regular permit.

HEADNOTE:      In order  to promote  tourism, the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act  for short)  was amended  in 1970 and sub-sec. (7) was  inserted  in  s.  63  empowering  the  State  Transport Authority in each state to grant permits valid for the whole or any  part of  India in  respect of such number of tourist vehicles as  may be specified by the Central Government. The Central Government  specified  that  every  State  Transport Authority may  grant such permit not exceeding 50 in number. The State  Transport Authority  of Karnataka  issued 36 such permits and there were 14 vacancies. Several persons applied for  temporary  all  India  tourist  permits  to  the  State Transport Authority.  The State Transport Authority rejected the applications.  On appeal  the State  Transport Appellate Tribunal purporting to exercise power under s. 62 of the Act granted  temporary   all  India  tourist  permits.  On  writ petitions filed  by some  of the  holders of regular permits under s.  63(7) the  High Court  quashed and  set aside  the decision of  the State  Transport  Appellate  Tribunal.  The appellants and  the petitioners  who had  obtained  or  were desirous of  obtaining temporary  all India  tourist permits challenged the  correctness of  the  decision  of  the  High Court. The appellants urged: (1) that the Regional Transport Authority can  grant temporary all-India tourist permits for the reasons  mentioned  in  sec.  62;  (2)  that  the  State Transport Authority of Karnataka can grant temporary permits for the  vacancies till  regular all-India  tourist  permits were granted;  (3) that  in view  of the  provisions of sec. 44(3), the  expression Regional  Transport  Authority  would either comprehend  State Transport Authority or would not at least exclude  the power conferred on the lower authority to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

be enjoyed  by the  higher authority; (4) that as far as the State  of   Karnataka  was   concerned,  on   the  issue  of notification under  sub-sec. (2A)  of sec. 45 the expression ’Regional  Transport   Authority’  in   sec.  62  will  also comprehend State  Transport Authority.  and,  (S)  that  the expression ’such  permit’ in  sec.  63(7)  could  only  mean regular or  all India  tourist permit  and the temporary all India tourist  permit was not to be catered to by sec. 63(7) but by  sec. 62  and therefore  sec. 62  was rightly omitted from the array of sections set out in sec. 63(7).      Dismissing the  appeals, special  leave  petitions  and writ petitions, 741 ^      HELD: There  is no  power to  grant temporary all India tourist permit under sec. 62. [757 E]      An Authority  having jurisdiction  over a comparatively small area  is favourably  placed to  notice a  situation as contemplated by sec. 62. Therefore, sec. 62 confers power on the Regional  Transport Authority, the jurisdiction of which extends over  a region  which ii usually a small part of the State to  grant temporary  permits to operate vehicles for a short period to meet some temporary or emergency requirement or pending  the renewal  of an already granted permit. There is intrinsic  evidence in  the language of sec. 62 that this power was  meant to  be used by Regional Transport Authority for dealing  with a  situation within  its  small  area.  If Regional Transport  Authority  is  not  competent  to  grant regular all  India tourist  permit, no canon of construction would permit  the Court  to clothe  him with  power to grant temporary all India tourist permit. [752 A-D]      The Madhya  Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. the Regional  Transport Authority,  Raipur, [1965]  3 S.C.R. 786 referred to.      Section  62(1)(d)   does  not   provide  for  grant  of temporary permits  pending grant of a regular permit. On the contrary the  first proviso  to Sec.  62(1)  makes  what  is implicit in  cl. (d)  explicit by providing that a temporary permit under  sec. 62  shall, in  no  case,  be  granted  in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant  of a  new permit  under sec. 46 or sec. 54 during the pendency  of the  application. It  may be  recalled that sec. 46 provides for an application for a stage carriage and sec. 54  provides for  an application  for public  carrier’s permit. Therefore,  in no  case a  temporary permit  can  be granted under  the section  pending grant of or renewal of a contract carriage  permit. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 62, however, carves out  an exception where a temporary contract carriage permit can  be granted in respect of any route or area where no permit could be issued by reason of an order of the court or, other  competent authority  restraining the issue of the same. That  is not  the case  here. Therefore,  there is  no power to grant a temporary contract carriage permit and ipso facto the  temporary all India tourist permit under sec. 62. [753 D-G]      Sec. 44(3)  merely  provides  that  a  State  Transport Authority can  perform the  duties of  a Regional  Transport Authority where  there is  no such Authority or where, 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. In the instant case none of these conditions under which a State Transport Authority can perform the functions and discharge the duties of a Regional Transport Authority  are satisfied,  and  therefore,  it  is difficult to  accept  tho  submission  that  the  expression

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

’Regional  Transport   Authority’  used   in  sec.  62  will comprehend  State   Transport  Authority.  Even  if  in  its application, the  Act with  its local amendment to the State of Karnataka  sec.  62  would  enable  the  State  Transport Authority to issue a temporary permit this would hardly make any difference  because the  power to grant temporary permit under sec. 62 in the circumstances and eventualities therein mentioned would not comprehend 742 the power  to  grant  temporary  all  India  tourist  permit because none  of the  conditions under which the same can be granted would be attracted and the State Transport Authority will have  no material  for satisfaction of one or the other conditions set out in Sec. 62 which would enable it to grant such a  permit. There  is no  express provision  in the  Act which provides that the State Transport Authority can always and without  any fetter  enjoy the  power  of  the  Regional Transport Authority  and in the absence of such provision it is difficult  to  read  merely  on  the  basis  of  vertical hierarchy wherever  the lower  authority is mentioned in the statue, the higher authority be included therein.                                           [752 E-H; 753 A-B]      The whole  concept  of  granting  temporary  all  India tourist permit  is foreign  to  the  concept  of  all  India tourist permit.  An all India touris permit is none-the-less a contract  carriage  permit  but  while  contract  carriage permit can  be granted  for any  vehicle not  required to be specially adopted  for  the  purpose,  a  contract  carriage permit for  all India  operation as  envisaged by sec. 63(7) can only  be granted  in respect  of tourist vehicle, and it appears that  it requires a substantial financial investment for adapting  a vehicle as a tourist vehicle. This intrinsic evidence shows  that such  huge or  heavy outlay  cannot  be imposed on  an applicant  by giving  him temporary all India tourist permit  which can  if at all be granted for a period extending 4 months [756 E-G]      If sec.  62 were  to be  a proviso  to sec.  63(7)  and therefore, one  can conceive  of granting  a  temporary  all India tourist  permit for  meeting  a  particular  temporary need, it  is difficult  to envisage  a particular need of an all India  variant which  can be  noticed by State Transport Authority of  one State and such authority can proceed side- tracking all  relevant provisions  to  grant  temporary  all India tourist permit. [756 H; 757 A]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Writ Petitions  Nos. 7897-7901, 8077 86,  8115-34, 7969-78, 4591-4598 of 1983, 788-92, 1360, 2225, 2365  67 of  1982, 7924-52, 8049-50, 7963-68, 8087-92, 8093-97, 8137-69  5824, 5818,  5233, 4578, 4577, 4574, 4576, 8047-48 of  1983, 7490-92/82,  3560,  5625,  5830,  6071-75, 6083-90, 6098-6101, 6102-29, 6180-88, 7046-47, 7495, 7613-14 7622-26, 7656-60,  7663-68, 7670-82, 8003, 8005, 8006, 4583, 8434-40, 8427-33,  5356-64, 7618-21,  7655,  8391-93,  3326, 3939, 6133-79 of 1983, 9347, 7800 and 9803 of 1982.      (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).                             WITH      Civil Appeal No. 31-34 of 1981.      Appeals from  the judgment  and order  dated  the  18th December, 1980 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 21090 and 21339 of 1980. 743                             AND

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

    Civil Appeals Nos. 1735-06 of 1981      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  judgment and  order dated the  19th May,  1981 of  the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal,  Bangalore in Appeal Nos. 643 and 644 of 1980.                             AND      Special Leave Petition No. 2275 of 1982.      From the  Proceedings dated  6th October,  1981 of  the Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority Bangalore, in Subject No. 165 of 1981.      For the Appearing Parties:      K. K. Venugopal, R. B. Datar & Ms. Madhu Mool Chandani, K. N. Bhatt, A. T. M. Sampath, P. N. Ramalingam, B.P. Singh, S. S.  Javali, N. K Sharma, Harbans Lal, R. N. Poddar, N. S. Das Bahl,  V. G.  Mehta, V.  K. Verma,  P. R. Mridul, Vineet Kumar, C. S. Vaidyanathan, N. Nettar, B. R. L. Iyengar, P.R. Ramasesh, P.  K. Pillai,  R. P.  Bhatt, Swaraj  Kaushal,  M. Veerappa and A. K. Sharma.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J.  Appellants and  petitioners in this group of appeals and  special leave  petition and  writ petitions are persons who  have obtained  or were  desirous  of  obtaining temporary tourist  permits valid  for  the  whole  of  India styled as ’All India Tourist Permit’.      The chronology  of events  leading to  the appeals  and writ petitions  may be  briefly  stated.  Sub-sec.  (7)  was inserted in Sec. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act for short) with  effect from  October 1,  1970 empowering  State Transport Authority  in  each  State,  for  the  purpose  of promoting tourism,  to grant  permits valid for the whole or any part  of India,  in respect  of such  number of  tourist vehicles as  the Central  Government may, in respect of that State,  specify  in  this  behalf.  The  Central  Government specified that  the State  Transport Authority in each State may grant permit as 744 contemplated by  Sec. 63  (7) not  exceeding 50  in  number. Armed with  this power,  the State  Transport  Authority  of Karnataka State  in all  granted 36 such permits. There were thus 14  vacancies. It  appears that several persons applied for  temporary  all  India  tourist  permits  to  the  State Transport Authority  of Karnataka  State. These applications for the permits were rejected and some of the applicants who were respondent  Nos. 3  to 11  in the  writ petition in the High Court  and who  are appellants  in this Court preferred appeals to State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appellate tribunal purporting  to exercise  power under Sec. 62 of the Act granted  temporary all  India tourist  permits to  them. Some of the holders of regular permits granted under sec. 63 (7) of  the Act  filed writ  petitions in  the High Court of Karnataka. By  a common  Judgment the  Division Bench of the High Court  allowed the  writ petitions,  inter alia, on the ground that  the grant of a permit under Sec. 63 (7) must be in accordance  with the  provisions of  the various sections set out  therein which  does not include Sec. 62 under which alone temporary  permit can  be granted and therefore, grant of temporary  permits for  tourist  vehicles  of  all  India operation  is   not  permissible.  Accordingly,  a  writ  of certiorary  was   issued  guashing  and  setting  aside  the decision of  the State Transport Appellate Authority. On the request of  the present appellants, the High Court granted a certificate under  Art. 134  A of the Constitution as in its view a  substantial question  of law  of general importance, namely, whether a temporary permit can be granted in respect of a tourist vehicle for all India operation, does arise and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

further in  its opinion  the question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence some appeals by certificate.      Following the  decision of the High Court, large number of appeals  pending before  the  State  Transport  Appellate Authority were  dismissed and  the appellants  whose appeals were dismissed  have approached this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.  Further a  large number of writ petitions have  been   filed  under   Art.  32   of  the  Constitution questioning the  correctness  of  the  decision  of  various transport authorities  refusing to grant temporary all India tourist permits and praying for a writ of mandamus directing the State  Transport Authority  of various  States to  grant such permits. A further prayer in some of the writ petitions is to  the effect  that that part of sub sec. (7) of Sec. 63 which enables  the Central  Government to  prescribe a quota for each  State in  resp-ct of all India tourist permits, is violative  of   the  Constitution   and  must   be  declared unconstitutional. 745      As common  questions have  been raised  in the appeals, special leave  petitions and  the writ  petitions, they were heard together  and are  being disposed  of by  this  common judgment.      The narrow  and the  only question  that was  canvassed before us is: whether there is power in any of the Transport Authorities as  enumerated in  Sec. 44  of the  Act to grant temporary all  India  tourist  permits  ?  In  other  words, whether the  power conferred  by Sec. 62 of the Act enabling the  Regional  Transport  Authority  without  following  the procedure laid down in Sec. 57, to grant temporary permit as therein  envisaged  would  comprehend  the  power  to  grant temporary all  India  tourist  permits  ?  We  must  frankly confess that  this neat  question of law is none too easy of answer and much can be said in support of rival contentions.      At the  outset, let  it be  made distinctly  clear that there is  no nomenclature  as regular or permanent all India tourist permit.  Sec. 63 (7) has specified a permit that can be granted  by the  State Transport  Authority of any State, subject to  the quota  fixed by the Central Government valid for the  whole or  any part of India. In other words, such a permit would  enable the  permit holder  to undertake an all India operation which for brevity’s sake may be described as all India  tourist permit. Sec. 63 (7) speaks of such permit which may  be  granted  after  complying  with  the  various sections of  the Act  therein set  out.  Such  permits  when granted may be styled as regular all India tourist permit in contradistinction to what the appellants and the petitioners seek as temporary all India tourist permit.      A brief  resume of  the relevant  provisions of the Act may  shed   light  on  the  controversy  raised  before  us. Expression ’contract  carriage’ is  defined in Sec. 2 (3) to mean a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire  or reward  under a contract express or implied for the use  of the  vehicle as  a whole  at or  for a  fixed or agreed rate  or sum etc. ’Stage carriage’ is defined in Sec. 2 (29)  to mean a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than  six persons  excluding the  driver which  carries passengers for  hire or  reward at separate fares paid by or for individual  passengers, either  for the whole journey or for stages  of the  journey. Expression ’tourist vehicle’ is defined  in  Sec.  2(29  A)  to  Mean  a  contract  carriage constructed  or  adapted  and  equipped  and  maintained  in accordance with  such specifications as the State Government may, by  notification in  the official  Gazette, specify  in this behalf. The defini-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

746 tion of  ’tourist vehicle’ was introduced by Amending Act 56 of 1969 by which Sec. 63 (7) was also introduced. Chapter IV bears the  heading ’Control  of Transport Vehicles’. Sec. 42 prohibits owner  of a  transport vehicle  to use the same in the public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted  under the relevant provisions of the Act. It may  be  recalled  that  transport  vehicle  includes  goods vehicle as  well as  passenger vehicle.  Thus  no  passenger vehicles can  be used  in any public place without a permit. Sec. 44  requires the State Government to constitute various transport authorities  in each State such as State Transport Authority,  to   exercise  and   discharge  the  powers  and functions  specified   in  sub-sec.  (3)  as  also  Regional Transport Authority  to exercise  and  discharge  throughout such areas  referred to  as regions,  as may be specified in the notification,  powers and  functions conferred  on  such authority. It  would appear that a State Transport Authority is to be constituted for the whole State. The State is to be divided  into  various  regions  and  a  Regional  Transport Authority has  to be  constituted for  one or  more of  such regions. The  powers and  functions of  the State  Transport Authority  are   generally  stated  in  sub-sec.  (3)  which include; (a)  the  duty  to  co-ordinate  and  regulate  the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authority, if any,  of the  State, (b)  to  perform  the  duties  of  a Regional  Transport   Authority  where   there  is  no  such authority 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  the   disputes  and  decide  all  matters  on  which differences of  opinion  arise  between  Regional  Transport Authorities, and  (d) to  discharge such  other functions as may be  prescribed. Sec.  45 makes  general provisions as to applications for  permits. Sub-sec.  (2) of Sec. 45 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), the State  Government  may,  by  notification  in  the  official Gazette, direct  that in the case of any vehicle or vehicles proposed to  be  used  in  two  or  more  regions  Lying  in DIFFERENT States, the application under Sec. 45 (1) shall be made to the State Transport Authority of the region in which the  applicant   resides  or  has  his  principal  place  of business. Sec.  46 specifies  the contents of an application for  a   stage  carriage  permit.  Sec.  49  prescribes  the requirements of  an  application  for  a  contract  carriage permit. One  of the  requirements is to specify the area for which the permit is required. Primarily an application for a contract carriage  has to  be  made  to  Regional  Transport Authority  as  transpires  from  Secs.  50  and  51.  It  is necessary to  notice this  fact because an all India tourist permit is none-the-less a contract carriage permit with 747 this difference  that its  area of operation is the whole of India. It would further transpire from a combined reading of Secs. 49,  50 and  51 that  an application  for  a  contract carriage permit  with its  operational  jurisdiction  intra- State has to be made to the Regional Transport Authority and if inter-State  operation is  contemplated, the  application has to  be made  to the  State Transport  Authority  of  the region in  which the  applicant resides or has his principal place of  business as  contemplated by  Sec.  45  (2).  This becomes further manifest from the provisions of Sec. 63. (1) which provides  that except  as otherwise provided, a permit granted by  the Regional  Transport  Authority  of  any  one region shall  not be  valid in any region, unless the permit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

has been  counter-signed 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 counter-signed by the  State Transport  Authority of that other State or by the Regional  Transport Authority concerned. Sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 63  starts with  a non-obstante  clause and it provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1). but subject to  any rules  that may  be made under this Act, the Regional Transport  Authority of any one region may, for the convenience  of  the  public,  grant  a  special  permit  in relation  to   a  public  service  vehicle  for  carrying  a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express of  implied for  the use  of the  vehicle as a whole without stopping  to pick  up or  set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract. 11 Then comes sub-sec. (7)  of Sec.  63 which  enables the State Transport Authority to  grant regular all India tourist permit. It may be extracted:           "Notwithstanding anything  contained in  sub-      section (1),  but subject to any rules that may be      made under this Act, any State Transport Authority      may, for  the purpose  or promoting tourism, grant      permits valid  for the whole or any part of India,      in respect  of such  number of tourist vehicles as      the Central  Government may,  in respect  of  that      State, specify  in this behalf, and the provisions      of Sections  49, 50,  51, 57, 58, 59, 59-A, 60, 61      and 64  shall, as far as may be, apply in relation      to such permits." There is  a proviso  to the  section which is immaterial for the present purpose.      Sub-sec. (7)  of Sec. 63 which confers power on a State transport Authority  to  grant  regular  all  India  tourist permit makes 748 it obligatory  that while  granting such permits or in order to grant  such permit  or with  a view to obtain such permit the applicant  as well as the concerned authority shall have to act  in accordance with Secs. 49, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 59- A, 60,  61 and  64 as  far as may, apply in relation to such permits.      A reference  to Sec.  62 at  this  stage  is  necessary because the State Transport Appellate Authority reversed the decision of  the Regional  Transport Authority  and directed grant of  temporary  all  India  tourist  permit  under  the erroneous understanding  that such  temporary permits can be granted under Sec. 62. Sec. 62 reads as under:           "62.   Temporary   permits-(1)   A   Regional      Transport  Authority  may  without  following  the      procedure laid  down in Section 57, grant permits,      to be  effective for  a limited  period not in any      case to  exceed four  months, to authorise the use      of a transport vehicle temporarily-      (a)   for the  conveyance of passengers on special           occasions such  as  to  and  from  fairs  and           religious gatherings, or      (b)  for the purposes of a seasonal business, or      (c)  to meet a particular temporary need, or      (d)   pending decision  on an  application for the           renewal of  a permit,  any may  attach to any           such permit any condition it thinks fit:           Provided that  a temporary  permit under this      section shall,  in no  case, be granted in respect      of any  route or  area specified in an application      for the  grant of a new permit under Section 46 or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

    Section 54 during the pendency of the application:           Provided  further  that  a  temporary  permit      under this  section shall,  in no case, be granted      more than  once in  respect of  any route  or area      specified in  an application  for the renewal of a      permit during the pendency of such application for      renewal. 749           (2)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in      subsection (1),  a temporary permit may be granted      there-under in respect of any route or area where-           (i)   no permit could be issued under Section                48  or  Section  51  or  Section  54  in                respect of  that route or area by reason                of  an   order  of  a  court  or,  other                competent  authority   restraining   the                issue of  the same,  for  a  period  not                exceeding the period for which the issue                of the permit has been so restrained; or           (ii) as a result of the suspension by a court                or  other  competent  authority  of  the                permit of any vehicle in respect of that                route or  area, there  is no  trans port                vehicle of  the same  class with a valid                permit, in  respect  of  that  route  or                area, or  there is no adequate number of                such vehicles  in respect  of that route                or area,  for a period not exceeding the                period of such suspension.:           Provided  that   the  number   of   transport      vehicles in  respect of which the temporary permit      is so  granted shall  not  exceed  the  number  of      vehicles in respect of which the issue of a permit      has been  restrained or  as the  case may  be, the      permit has been suspended."      Translating these  various provisions  into  functional implementation, an  applicant who desires to obtain a permit for a  tourist vehicle has to make an application under Sec. 63 (7).  Such an application has to be processed as required by Sec.  49 which  would immediately imprint the application as an  application for  a contract carriage permit with this difference that  it shall have an all India operation. If it is  an  application  simpliciter  for  a  contract  carriage permit, Sec. 50 would necessitate the application being made to  Regional   Transport  Authority,  but  if  the  contract carriage permit is to be valid for an inter-State operation, obviously, the  application will  have to  be made  to State Transport Authority  Sec.  63  (7)  also  requires  that  an application for  all India  tourist permit has to be made to State  Transport   Authority.  Therefore,   even  though  an application for  contract carriage  permit has ordinarily to be made  to  Regional  Transport  Authority,  if  all  India operation is desired in respect 750 of a  tourist vehicle,  the same has to be made to the State Transport Authority.  This application  has to  be processed according to the procedure prescribed in Sec. 50. A contract carriage permit  other than  the one  having  an  all  India operation must  specify the  area or  the route or routes on which the  permit holder  can  ply  the  vehicle  under  the authority of contract carriage permit as required by Sec.      Sl. Permit  contemplated by  Sec. 63 (7) can be granted and shall  be effective without renewal for such period, not less than  3 years  and  not  more  than  5  years,  as  the authority granting the permit may specify. (See Sec. 58). In

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

view of  the power  conferred  by  Sec.  60,  the  transport authority which  granted the  permit will  have the power to cancel or suspend the same, if one or more of the conditions prescribed in Sec. 60 are satisfied.      Sec. 63  (7) for  the first time conferred power on the State Transport Authority in a State to grant a permit which will enable the permit holder to use the tourist vehicle for all India  operation without  complying with sub-sec. (1) of Sec.  63   which  required  countersignature  of  tho  State Transport Authority  or the  Regional Transport Authority as the case  may be  of State  or region  other than the one by which the  permit is  granted, to  undertake an operation in the area  within the  jurisdiction  of  the  counter-signing State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority as the case  may be.  Therefore, unquestionably even though the permit contemplated  by Sec. 63 (7) has a larger operational area, it  is none  the less  a contract carriage permit, and Sec. 63 (7) mandated that the authority granting such permit will have  to comply  with all  the sections  except Sec. 62 which have  to be  complied with  for obtaining  a  contract carriage permit  contemplated by  Sec. 49.  Why was  Sec. 62 omitted from Sec. 63 (7) is the root question ?      The High  Court in this connection observed that "since subsection (6)  of Sec. 63 has provided for grant of special permits for all India operation of contract carriages, it is reasonable to  infer that the omission to mention Sec. 62 in the latter  part of  sub-sec. (7)  of Sec. 63 was deliberate and that  the legislature  did not intend grant of temporary permits for  tourist vehicles for all India operation." This view is  assailed on  behalf of  the appellants and the writ petitioners.      It was  contended that  as an  elaborate  procedure  is prescribed for  grant of  stage carriage  permit or contract carriage permit  and  that  it  being  a  prolix  and  time- consuming process, Sec. 62 keeping in 751 view the  urgent  or  emergent  need  to  provide  transport facilities to travelling public, conferred power on Regional Transport Authority  to grant  temporary permit  to  meet  a particular  temporary  need  or  for  purposes  of  seasonal business or  pending decision  of  an  application  for  the renewal of  a permit.  It was  urged that  if either a stage carriage or  contract carriage  permit can  be granted  by a Regional Transport  Authority to meet a particular temporary need or  pending decision  of an application for the renewal of a  permit, the  Regional Transport  Authority can as well grant temporary  all India  tourist permit for the self same reasons.      There are two fallacies in the submissions on behalf of the appellants  and the  writ petitioners.  Sec. 62  confers power on the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit. A  Regional Transport  Authority is  set  up  for  a region. The jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority extends over  a region  which is usually a small part of the State because  for the  purposes of  the Act State has to be divided into  regions. Power  to grant  temporary permit  is conferred on  Regional Transport  Authority, amongst others, meet  a   particular  temporary   need.  Regional  Transport Authority having  jurisdiction over  a  comparatively  small area may be able to gauge, notice or appreciate a particular temporary need  for which  a temporary permit can be granted for a  period not  exceeding 4  months without following the procedure prescribed.  in Sec.  57. The  same power  can  be enjoyed pending the renewal of an already granted permit. By its very nature. Sec. 62 caters to a situation where permits

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

to operate  vehicles may  be granted  for a  short period to meet some  temporary or  emergency requirement or where time is likely  to be  spent in  processing  an  application  for renewal of  a permit  and in  the interregnum the travelling public may  not be  put to  inconvenience on account of non- availability of  vehicles with  permits.  (See.  The  Madhya Pradesh State  Road Transport  Corporation v.  The  Regional Transport  Authority,   Raipur).(1)  An   authority   having jurisdiction over  a comparatively  small area is favourably placed to  notice a  situation as  contemplated by  Sec. 62. Therefore, the  power is  conferred  on  Regional  Transport Authority and  not the  State Transport  Authority to  grant temporary permit  in the  circumstances set  out in Sec. 62, because State  Transport Authority has jurisdiction over the whole State,  and the  State Transport  Authority exercising the power  under Sec.  63 (7) will have to have an all India perspective. 752 Therefore, the  statute did  not confer such power on State. Transport Authority  because by its very nature the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over a comparatively smaller area would be better equipped to appreciate and deal with the  needs of  the travelling  public  of  a  temporary character or  pending the  renewal of  a  permit.  There  is intrinsic evidence  in the  language of  Sec. 62 that it was meant to be used by Regional Transport Authority for dealing with  a   situation  within  its  small  area.  If  Regional Transport Authority  is not  competent to  grant regular all India tourist  permit, no canon of construction would permit the Court  to clothe  him with  power to grant temporary all India tourist  permit. Even  if the dictum that the power to grant final relief inheres the power to grant interim relief can  be  extended  to  executive  authority,  yet  when  the Regional Transport  Authority has  no power to grant regular all India  tourist permit,  it would  be impossible  to hold that such  authority has  none the  less the  power to grant temporary all  India tourist  permit.  Therefore,  the  very language of  Sec. 62  on which  the High Court substantially relied in  support of  its conclusion would be sufficient to negative the contention canvased on behalf of the appellants and the petitioners.      It was,  however, urged that Sec. 44 (3) contemplates a situation where  a State  Transport Authority has to perform the duties  of Regional  Transport Authority and, therefore, the expression  ’Regional Transport  Authority’ in  Sec.  62 would either  comprehend State  Transport Authority or would not  atleast  exclude  the  power  conferred  on  the  lower authority to be enjoyed by the higher authority. Sec. 44 (3) would not  render any  help in this behalf because it merely provides that  a State  Transport Authority  can perform the duties of  a Regional  Transport Authority where there is no such Authority  or where, 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. None of  these conditions  under  which  a  State  Transport Authority can perform the functions and discharge the duties of a  Regional Transport  Authority are satisfied, and there fore, it  is difficult  to accept  the submission  that  the expression ’Regional  Transport Authority’  used in  Sec. 62 will comprehend  State Trans  port Authority.  It is equally not possible  to accept  the submission that when a power is conferred on  a lower  authority that  power can  always  be enjoyed by the authority higher in the hierarchy in relation to the lower authority. There is no express provision in the statute which  provides that  the Stats  Transport Authority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

can always and 753 without any fetter enjoy the power of the Regional Transport Authority and  in  the  absence  of  such  provision  it  is difficult to  read merely on the basis of vertical hierarchy wherever the  lower authority  is mentioned  in the statute, the higher  authority be  included therein. Viewed from this angle, we  do not  propose  to  undertake  the  exercise  of ascertaining whether  State Transport  Authority can be said to be the higher authority in relation to Regional Transport Authority.      It was  urged that  temporary  permit  can  be  granted pending decision  of an  application  for  a  renewal  of  a permit; and that as in the State of Karnataka out of a quota of 50  permits granted  by the Central Government under Sec. 63 (7),  only 36  have  been  issued,  the  State  Transport Authority can  grant temporary permit for the vacancies till regular all  India tourist  permits are granted. Support was sought to  be drawn  for the submission from cl. (d) of sub- sec. (1) of Sec. 62 which provides that temporary permit can be granted  pending  decision  on  an  application  for  the renewal of  a permit. The section does not provide for grant of temporary  permits pending  grant of a regular permit. On the contrary  the first proviso to Sec. 62 (1) makes what is implicit in  the  cl.  (d)  explicit  by  providing  that  a temporary permit under Sec. 62 shall, in no case, be granted in respect  of any route or area specified in an application for the  grant of  a new  permit under Section 46 or Sec. 54 during the  pendency of  the application. It may be recalled that Sec.  46  provides  for  an  application  for  a  stage carriage permit  and Sec. 54 provides for an application for public carriers  permit. Therefore,  in no  case a temporary permit can  be granted under the section pending grant of or renewal or  a contract  carriage permit. Sub-sec (2) of Sec. 62, however,  carves out  an  exception  where  a  temporary contract carriage  permit can  be granted  in respect of any route or  area where  no permit could be issued by reason of an  order   of  the  court  or,  other  competent  authority restraining the  issue of  the same.  That is  not the  case here. Therefore,  there is  no power  to grant  a  temporary contract carriage  permit and  ipso facto  the temporary all India tourist permit under Sec. 62 and the contention stands negatived by  the very language of Sec. 62 Accordingly there is no merit in the submission.      A few  days after  the arguments were concluded and the matter stood  over for  Judgment, Mr.  K. N.  Bhatt, learned counsel for  some of  the petitioners  submitted  a  written brief in  which it  was stated  that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in its application to the State of 754 Karnataka  was   amended  by   the  Motor  Vehicles  (Mysore Amendment Act,  1973 (Karnataka  Act No.  25 of 1975) which, after receiving  the assent of the President came into force on January  12, 1974,  has introduced the following sentence at the end of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 45. The sentence reads as under:           "When  such   a   notification   is   issued,      reference to  the Regional  Transport Authority in      Sections 47,  48, 50,  51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,      62, 63 and 68 shall, in respect of the application      for permit  for using  a vehicle  in two  or  more      regions Lying in different States, be construed as      reference also to the State Transport Authority." By the  same Amending  Act sub-sec.  (2A) has  been added in Sec. 45 which reads as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

         "Notwithstanding anything  contained in  sub-      section  (1),   the  State   Government  may,   by      notification in  the official Gazette, direct that      in the case of any vehicle or vehicles proposed to      be used in two or more regions lying in the State,      the application  under that  sub-section shall  be      made to the State Transport Authority. When such a      notication is  issued, reference  to the  Regional      Transport Authority  in sections  47, 48,  50, 51,      53, 54,  55, 56,  57, 58.  62, 63 and 68F shall in      respect of  applications for  permit for  using  a      vehicle in two or more regions lying in the State,      be construed  as reference also to the State Trans      port Authority." Relying on  these amendments it was urged that as far as the State  of   Karnataka  is   concerned  on  the  issue  of  a notification under  sub-sec (2A)  of Sec  45 the  expression ’Regional  Transport   Authority’  in   Sec.  62  will  also comprehend State  Transport  Authority  and  therefore,  the submission of  the appellants  and the petitioners cannot be negatived  on   the  ground  that  only  Regional  Transport Authority is empowered to issue temporary permits. Though no notification as  required under sub-sec. (2A) of Sec. 45 was brought to  our notice  we are  prepared to  proceed on  the assumption that  such a  notification has  been issued.  But even if  in the application of the Motor Vehicles Act to the State  of   Karnataka,  Sec.  62  would  also  enable  State Transport Authority  to issue  temporary permit, it can only be done  in the circumstances and eventualities mentioned in that. 755 section. It  will be  presently pointed  out that  power  to grant temporary  permit under  Sec. 62  in the circumstances and eventualities therein mentioned would not comprehend the power to  grant temporary  all India  tourist permit because none of  the conditions  under which the same can be granted would be  attracted and State Transport Authority of a State will have  no material  for satisfaction of one or the other condition set  out in Sec. 62 which would enable it to grant such a  permit. Therefore,  this amendment would hardly make any difference in the outcome of the matter.      It was  urged that  the High  Court  was  in  error  in attaching importance  to the  omission of Sec. 62 from array of sections subject to which an application for an all India tourist- permit  has to  be processed which according to the High Court  clearly manifests the legislative intention that there was  no question  of granting  under any circumstances temporary all  India tourist  permit. It  was contended that omission of  Sec. 62  is quite  logical because  if  it  was placed amongst  the  array  of  sections  subject  to  which applications  for  all  India  tourist  permit  have  to  be processed, it  would  have  become  incongruous.  Proceeding along this  line it  was submitted that Sec. 63 (7) provides that ’such  permit’ as  contemplated by  Sec. 63 (7) will be granted in  accordance with  the various  provisions set out therein, the  expression ’such permit’ can only mean regular or all  India tourist  permit and  the temporary  all  India tourist permit  was not  to be catered to by Sec. 63 (7) but by Sec.  62 and  therefore it  was rightly  omitted from the array of  sections set  out in  sec. 63  (7). If one were to conclude from  the mere omission of Sec. 62 from amongst the array of sections subject to which an application for permit under sec.  63  (7)  will  have  to  be  processed  that  no temporary all  India tourist  permit can  be granted,  there would have  been some  force in  the submission on behalf of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

the appellants  and  the  writ  petitioners.  But  we  would presently point that the whole concept of granting temporary all India  tourist permit  is foreign  to the concept of all India  tourist   permit  and   that  this   conclusion  gets reinforced by  the omission  of Sec.  62 from  the array  of various sections  subject to to which a permit under Sec. 63 (7) can be granted.      Sub-section (7)  was introduced in Sec. 63 in 1970. The object underlying  the introduction  of sub-sec. (7) becomes manifest  from   the  language   used  therein.   Till   the introduction of  sub-sec. (7),  the situation  was that  the Regional Transport  Authority can  grant  contract  carriage permit valid  for the  area under  its jurisdiction  or when counter-signed by the State Transport Authority of the other State 756 then the  vehicle can  be operated  in that other State. Now with a  view to  promoting tourism, it was decided to clothe State Transport Authority with power to issue a permit which without the  necessity  of  obtaining  counter-signature  of other Transport Authority of other State valid for operating the  vehicle  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the country. With  a view  to providing  uninterrupted  flow  of tourist traffic,  thereby expanding tourist facilities which would promote  tourism in  the country,  a contract carriage permit with  all India operation was conceived and power was conferred on  the State  Transport Authority  subject to the quota prescribed by the Central Government for each State to grant such  permit. Every State had the prescribed quota and we were  informed that  at present each State has a quota of 50 permits.  Within the  quota, State Transport Authority in each State  can grant  a contract carriage permit in respect of a  tourist vehicle  for all  India operation.  A contract carriage permit  can as  well be  granted under  Sec. 51  in respect of a vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire  or reward  under a contract express or implied for the use  of the  vehicle as  a whole  at or  for a  fixed or agreed rate  or sum  etc. Any  ordinary vehicle  meeting the requirements  of  law  can  be  operated  under  a  contract carriage permit  granted under Sec. 51. But when it comes to granting of  a contract  carriage permit  available for  all India operation,  it has  to be  in  respect  of  a  tourist vehicle. Tourist vehicle has been defined to mean a contract carriage constructed  or adapted and equipped and maintained in  accordance   with  such   specifications  as  the  State Government, may,  by notification  in the  official Gazette, specify in  this behalf.  We were  told  that  some  special arrangements for comfortable journey over long distances has to be provided in a tourist vehicle. What is the distinction ? An  all India  tourist permit  is none-the-less a contract carriage permit  but while  contract carriage  permit can be granted for any vehicle not required to be specially adapted for the  purpose, a  contract carriage  permit for all India operation as envisaged by Sec. 63 (7) can only be granted in respect of  tourist vehicle, and it appears that it requires a substantial financial investment for adapting a vehicle as a tourist  vehicle. This  intrinsic evidence shows that such huge or  heavy outlay  cannot be  imposed on an applicant by giving him  temporary all  India tourist permit which cannot be granted for a period extending 4 months.      If Sec.  62 were  to be  a proviso  to Sec.  63 (7) and therefore, one  can conceive  of granting  a  temporary  all India tourist  permit for  meeting  a  particular  temporary need, it  is difficult  to envisage  a particular  temporary need of an all India variant which can be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

757 noticed by  State Transport  Authority of one State and such authority can  proceed side-tracking all relevant provisions to grant  temporary all  India  tourist  permit.  Can  there conceivably be  a particular  temporary need felt throughout India  at   the  same  time  ?  If  the  answer  is  in  the affirmative, all  the States  can grant  temporary  permits. There will  be more  vehicles and less travellers. Further a State Transport  Authority of  one State  may  believe  that there exists a particular temporary need but the view of the other State  Transport  Authority  can  be  exactly  to  the contrary, and  State Transport  Authority. Of  one State can open the flood-gates of temporary permits permitting tourist vehicles to invade other States. It may be that a particular temporary need  may arise  in one  State  but  that  can  be catered to by the Regional Transport Authority of the region or  the  State  Transport  Authority  of  the  State  giving direction to  Regional Transport Authority to grant contract carriage permit  under Sec.  51. It is not necessary to have recourse to  Sec. 63  (7) in  such a  situation, and  if one State cannot  cater to  the particular all India need, other States having their own quota can fill in the bill.      Having thus  examined the  whole concept  of all  India tourist permit, the question of granting of a tourist permit to cater  to a  particular  temporary  need  appears  to  be foreign to the very concept of all India tourist permit. For this additional  reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court was  perfectly justified  in reaching the E conclusion that there  is no power to grant temporary all India tourist permit and  the High Court rightly set aside the decision of the  State   Transport  Appellate   Authority.  No  case  is therefore,  made   out  for   interfering  with   the  same. Accordingly all  these appeals,  special leave petitions and writ petitions  fail and  each of  which is  dismissed  with costs where  appearance has  been entered  into on the other side.      All interim orders are vacated. H.L.C.                      Appeals and petitions dismissed. 758