http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SRI RAM VILAS SERVICE LTD., KUMBAKONAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAMAN & RAMAN PRIVATE LTD., & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/10/1967

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. SHAH, J.C. SHELAT, J.M.

CITATION:  1968 AIR  748            1968 SCR  (2)  14

ACT: Motor  Vehicles  Act  (4  of 1939). s.  48(3)  and  r.  208- Variation   of  Route-Jurisdiction  of  Regional   Transport Authority--Madras Act (1) of 19 ), S. 5 (1).

HEADNOTE: The  appellant’s  application  for  variation  of  a   route extending beyond 24 kilometers was accepted by the  Regional Transport Authority.  The respondent, who had unsuccessfully objected  before the Authority filed a writ petition in  the High Court to quash the order.  The High Court accepted  the writ  petition  holding that any variation in excess  of  24 kilometers  was  ex  facie  illegal  and  violation  of  the intendment of the legislature enacting Madras Act 3 of 1964. which  amended  the  Motor Vehicles Act.   In  appeals  this Court, HELD : The Regional Transport Authority had authority  under r.  208  to  vary the permit and  nothing  contained  in  s. 48(3)(xxi)  of the Motor Vehicles Act limited its  power  in respect  of  the distance covered by the variation  in  this case. [19A] Section  5(1)  of  Madras Act 3 of 1964 made  the  route  or routes or the area specified in every stage carriage  permit granted  before  the  commencement of  the  Amending  Act  a condition attached to such permit tinder sub-s. (3) of s. 48 of the Principal Act; it did not that s. 48(3)(xxi) shall be deemed to be  condition attached to every such permit. [18c] The  High Court erred in holding that s. 48(3)(xxi)  of  the Act,  is  amended.  by itself gave  power  to  the  Regional Transport Authority to vary the route within certain limits. This  power Could be exercised only if a condition  to  that effect  was put in the permit. In the case of the  appellant the  permit contained a condition similar to  the  condition mentioned  in s. 48 (3) (xxi) before its amendment by Act  3 of  f  964.  Therefore, for the purpose of  this  appeal  s. 48(3)(xxi). is amendment has to be treated ,is non-existent. [18E-G]

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1967. Appeal front the judgment and order dated October 3, 1966 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1966.  G.  Ramaswamy, R. Gopalakrishnan and K. K.  Venugopal,  for the appellant. M.N. Ranghachari, M.K. Ramamurthy, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for respondent No.1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri,  J.  This appeal by certificate granted by  the  High Court of Madras is directed against its order dated  October 3, 1966,  15 allowing  the  writ  petition filed under Art.  226  of  the Constitution by M/s Raman & Raman (P) Ltd., Kumbakonam,  and quashing  the  order of the  Regional  Transport  Authority, Thanjavur,  dated  March  28,  1966,  whereby  the  Regional Transport   Authority  had  granted  the   application   for variation of the route Sirkali to, Kumbakonam of M/s Sri Ram Vilas  Service  Ltd.  Kumbakonam, in respect  of  two  stage carriages. On  December 9, 1965, the application of M/s Sri  Ram  Vilas Service Ltd., Kumbakonam for variation of the route  Sirkali to,  Kumbakonam  was notified under s. 57(3)  of  the  Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939.   M/s Raman & Raman  (P)  Ltd.,  among others,  filed objections and after hearing the  objections, by  order  dated  March 28,  1966,  the  Regional  Transport Authority, Thanjavur, granted the application as,  according to it, the variation applied for was in the interest of  the travelling  public.  The distance covered by  the  variation extended  beyond 24 kilometers.  M/s Raman & Raman (P)  Ltd. filed  the  petition under Art 226 of  the  Constitution  to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The  question  which arises in this appeal  is  whether  the Regional  Transport Authority had jurisdiction to  vary  the route  by  extending  it beyond 24  kms.   The  High  Court, following its earlier decision in M/s Swami Motor  Transport (P)  Ltd.  v.  M/s Murugan  Transports,  Tiruchirapalli  and Others(1)   held  that  "any  variation  in  excess  of   24 kilometers  would be ex facie illegal and violation  of  the intendment of the legislature enacting Act 3 of 1964." The answer to the question posed above depends upon the true construction  of  some sections of the Motor  Vehicles  Act, 1939.  as  amended  by  the Madras Act  III  of  1964.   The relevant statutory provisions are as follows : "48(1).  Subject to the provisions of section 47, a Regional Transport  Authority may on an application made to it  under section  46,  grant a stage carriage pen-nit  in  accordance with  the application or with such modification as it  deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit; Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect  of any route or area not specified in the, application. (3)The  Regional  Transport Authority, if  it  decides  to grant  a  stage carriage permit, may grant  the  permit  for service of stage carriages of a specified description or for one or more particular stage carriages, and may, subject  to any rules that may be made under this Act, (1)  Writ  Petition  No.  3744  of  1965,  judgement   dated September 7, 1966. 16 attach  to  the  permit any one or more  of  the,  following conditions, namely : (i)that  the  stage carriage or stage carriages  shall  be used  only on a specified route or routes or in a  specified area.      .   .   .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .   .

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

(xxi)that  the Regional Transport Authority, may  after giving notice of not less than one month : (a)vary, extend or curtail the route or routes or the area specified in the permit. Provided that in the case of- (i)variation,  the  termini shall not be altered  and  the distance covered by variation shall not exceed 24 kms. (ii)extension  of  the distance covered  by  the  extension shall not exceed 24 kms. from the termini (aa) vary any other condition of the permit." "S.  57(8).   An application to vary the conditions  of  any permit  other than a temporary permit by the inclusion of  a new  route  or  routes or a new area or  by  the  variation, extension  or  curtailment of the route or  routes  or  area specified in the permit or in the case of a stage  ,carriage permit,  by  increasing  the number of  services  above  the specified  maximum,  or in the case of a  contract  carriage permit by increasing the number of vehicles, covered by  the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit." "Rule  208.  (a)  Upon application made in  writing  by  the holder  of any permit, the Transport Authority may,  at  any time,  in  its  discretion, vary the permit or  any  of  the conditions  thereof subject to the provisions  ,of  sub-rule (b). (b)If  the application is for the variation of the  permit by the inclusion of an additional vehicle or vehicles or  if the grant of variation would authorize transport  facilities materially  different from those authorized by the  original permit   the  Transport  Authority  shall  deal   with   the application  as  if  it were an application  for  a  permit. Provided  that nothing contained in this rule shall  prevent the  Transport Authority or its Secretary, if authorized  in this behalf, from summarily rejecting an application for the variation of a stage carriage permit 17 so  as to provide transport facilities on a road  which  has been or is certified to be unfit for motor vehicular traffic by  an officer not below the rank of Divisional Engineer  of the Highways Department. (c)Every application for variation of conditions of permit under sub-section (8) of section 57 of the Act in respect of a transport vehicle shall be. in form PVA. (d)The provisions of rules 163(b) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply  to application for the variation of a permit  or  the variation  of the counter-signature, if any, thereof by  the inclusion of an additional vehicle sanctioned subject to the production of the registration certificate of the additional vehicle." Section 5 of the Madras Act III of 1964, reads as follows " 5(1).  Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act,  the  route or routes or the area  specified  in  every stage  carriage  permit granted before the  commencement  of this Act shall be deemed to be a condition attached to  such permit under sub-section (3) of section 48 of the  principal Act,  as if this Act were in force on the date of  grant  of such permit. (2)Notwithstanding any judgment or order of any Court, all proceedings  taken for the grant of, and all  orders  passed granting  any  variation, extension or  curtailment  of  the route  or routes or the area specified in a  stage  carriage permit  before  the commencement of this Act  by  the  State Transport Authority or by a Regional Transport Authority  or by  an authority or person to whom the powers and  functions of  the  State Transport Authority or a  Regional  Transport

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Authority have been delegated, or by an authority exercising the  powers of appeal or revision against the orders of  the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority, shall  not be deemed to, be invalid merely by reason of  the fact  that  the State Transport Authority  or  the  Regional Transport  Authortiy,  as the case may be, had no  power  to grant such variation, extension or curtailment and all  such proceedings taken or orders passed shall be deemed always to have  been  validly taken or passed in accordance  with  law notwithstanding  the  distance covered by the  variation  or extension exceeded twenty-four kilometers." The learned counsel for the respondent contends that s. 4  8 3  (xxi), as amended, operates whether a condition  to  that effect  has been put in a permit or not.  But we are  unable to read s. 48 18 in this sense. Section  48  (3)  clearly  enables   the Regional Transport Authorityto attach to the permit any or one  of the twenty- one conditions.  It may in a  particular case put one or two or more of the condition,; or it may put all  the conditions.  It seems to be common ground  that  if any  of  the  first twenty conditions in  s.  48(3)  is  not attached  to a permit it will not have effect.   What  makes condition (xxi) different is hard to appreciate.  If  condi- tion  (xxi)  as amended is not attached to a  permit  it  is difficult  to see how the Regional Transport  Authority  can derive  any power from the existence of S. 48 (3)  (xxi)  in the Act.  Section 5 (1) of Act If of 1964 makes the route or routes or the area specified in every stage carriage  permit granted  before  the  commencement of  the  Amending  Act  a condition  attached to such permit tinder subsection (3)  of section  48  of the principal Act; it does not say  that  s. 48(3)  (xxi) shall be deemed to be a condition  attached  to every such permit. The  learned counsel for the  respondent says that this was theintention of the amendment, but  if this was so, the intention has not been carried out. It  was  argued before us that the  history  of  legislation supports the interpretation placed by the High Court but, in our view, the Act as it stands amended by Act III of 1964 is quite clear and it  is   not   necessary  to  go  into   the history of the legislation. It  seems  to us that the High Court erred in  holding  that s.   48  (3)  (xxi) of the Act, as amended, by  itself  gave power to the Regional Transport Authority to vary the  route within  certain limits.  This power, in our View,  Would  be exercisable only if a condition to that effect is put in the permit.  In the case of the appellant we saw the permit  and what  it contained was a condition similar to the  condition mentioned in s. 48 (3) (xxi) before its amendment by Act  If 1  of  1964.  Therefore, for the purpose of this  appeal  we must treat s. 48 (3) (xxi), as amended, as nonexistent.   If s. 48(3)(xxi), as amended, is treated as non-existent,  then there can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion  that no limitation had been placed on the powers of the  Regional Transport Authority in respect of the grant of  applications for  variation  of  the route.  The order  of  the  Regional Transport  Authority  cannot, therefore,  be  challenged  as being beyond its jurisdiction. Another  question that was debated before us was whether  r. 208  of  the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules,  extracted  above, confer  powers on a Transport Authority to vary  permits  or whether it is merely a procedural rule.  It seems to us that as the Act stands at present, r. 208 does confer power on  a transport  authority  to  vary  all  kinds  of  permits   or conditions attached therein.  This power is exercised on  an

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

application made in writing by the holder of any permit. 19 It follows from the above reasoning that the Regional Trans- port  Authority had the authority under r. 208 to  vary  the permit and nothing contained in s. 48 (3) (xxi) limited  its power in respect of the distance covered by the variation in this, case. We may mention that it was argued before us that s. 57(8) is not  merely procedural but also implies a power  to  receive applications and vary the conditions in a permit.  This  may be  so,  but  it is not necessary to  decide  in  this  case because  in  Madras  r. 208 clearly  confers  power  on  the Transport Authority to vary the conditions of the permit. In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment of  the High  Court  set aside.  The appellant will have  the  costs incurred in. this Court. Y.P.                            Appeal alloweded 20