http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: THE MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROADTRANSPORT  CORPORATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAIPUR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/04/1965

BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. HIDAYATULLAH, M.

CITATION:  1966 AIR  156            1965 SCR  (3) 786  CITATOR INFO :  F          1983 SC1065  (14)

ACT: Motor Vehicles Act, (4 of  1939), s. 62--Scope of.

HEADNOTE:     In  February,  1963,  the  first  respondent,   Regional Transport   Authority,  granted  a  permit  to   the   third respondent for running a town bus service in Raipur, but  as the  latter was unable to. put the service  into  operation, the permit was revoked in September,  1964. Thereafter,  the first respondent granted a temporary permit to the appellant for a period of two months and in November, 1964 pending the grant of a permit for permanent regular operations,  granted a second temporary permit to the appellant for four months.     The  third respondent thereupon filed a petition in  the High  Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the  order  of the  first  respondent granting a temporary  permit  to  the appellant on the ground, inter alia, that such grant was  in violation of s. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court allowed  the  petition, being of the view that  a  temporary permit  could not be granted for any route when there was  a permanent  need for providing transport facilities  on  that route  and  it had been decided to invite  applications  for that  purpose. In the appeal before this Court, it was  also contended  that  the  provision in s. 62  that  a  temporary permit  could be granted for a period not "in any  case"  to exceed four months meant that under no circumstances could a temporary  permit  be granted on any route for more  than  a total period of four months.     On  the  other hand, it was the  appellant’s  contention that  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  there  was   a "particular  temporary need" within the meaning of s.  62(c) and  the  High Court was in error in taking  the  view  that whenever  there  was  a permanent need, there  could  be  no temporary need.     HELD: (i) The Regional Transport Authority was right  as a  matter  of  law in granting a  temporary  permit  to  the appellant under s. 62(c) of the Act in the circumstances  of the case. [790 C]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

   After the regular permit granted to the third respondent was ,cancelled, in view of a shortage of transport  vehicles on the route the Regional Transport Authority thought it fit to  provide for this temporary need until permanent  regular operations  could  be  introduced  in  accordance  with  the procedure prescribed in s. 57. There  was no reason why  the clause "to meet a particular temporary need" should be given any  special or restricted meaning. There is  no  antithesis between a particular temporary need and a permanent need and it is manifest that these two kinds of need may co-exist  on a particular route. [789 G-H] 786 787     (ii)  The words "in any case" in s. 62 do not  mean  "in any  circumstance". The section means that at any  one  time the  Transport  Authority is not permitted to issue  to  any person  a temporary permit for a period exceeding 4  months; but  if  the temporary need persists then, except  where  an abuse  of  the power is shown, it would  be  permissible  to grant a second temporary permit to meet the temporary  need. [790 D-F]     Jairam Dass v. Regional Transport Authority, I.L.R. 1956 Rajasthan  1053;  Chandi  Prasad  Mahajan  v.  The  Regional Transport   Authority,  Gauhati,  I.L.R.,  1952,  Assam   9, approved.     Sri  Rama Vilas Service Ltd. v. The Road Traffic  Board, Madras, A.I.R., 1948 Madras 400, Balagangadharan v. Regional Transport  Board,  Quilon, A.I.R., 1958,  Kerala  144,  Shah Transport  Co., Chhindwara v. The State of  Madhya  Pradesh, A.I.R.,  1952  Nagpur 363, Mallasattappa  v.  The  Chairman, Regional  Transport  Authority,  Bangalore,  A.I.R.,   1959, Mysore 114, disapproved.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  243  of 1965.     Appeal  by  special leave from the  judgment  and  order dated  January 13, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court  in Misc. Petition No. 624 of 1964.     S.V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, and 1. N. Shroff, for the appellant. A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent No. 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Ramaswami, J.  This appeal raises an important  question as to the scope and interpretation of s. 62(c) of the  Motor Vehicles  Act  and as to whether the appellant   The  Madhya Pradesh  State Road Transport Corporation--was entitled,  in the  circumstances of the case, to the grant of a  temporary permit  for  4 months under s. 62(c) of the  Motor  Vehicles Act.     On  November  27, 1962 applications were invited  for  a permit for running a town bus service in Raipur. On February 20, 1963 it was decided by the Regional Transport  Authority to   grant   a   permit  for  the   service   to   the   3rd respondent--Madhya   Pradesh  Transport  Co.   (Pvt.)   Ltd, Raipur--but the 3rd respondent did not produce buses of  the required  specifications  for operating the  service  though several  opportunities  were given. The order  granting  the permit to the 3rd respondent was consequently revoked by the Regional Transport Authority on September 13, 1964.  Shortly thereafter  the  Regional  Transport  Authority  granted   a temporary  -permit  to  the appellant for a  period  of  two months  i.e.  from  September 29, to November  28,  1964  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

respect  of  the aforesaid bus service. By the  order  dated November  25, 1964 the Regional Transport Authority  granted another temporary permit for 4 months to the appellant.  The order of November 25, 1964 states: 788                     "From  the large number of letters  from               some   responsible  members  of   the   public               received   with  this  application   and   the               statistics  of the traffic catered to  by  the               buses  operated by the Corporation, it is  now               clear that the public of Raipur is feeling the               need  of the town bus operations. It has  been               decided  by  this  Authority  separately  that               applications  for  regular operations  on  two               routes actually operated temporarily with some               extensions   and  one  additional   route   be               invited.  However, it has to be accepted  that               expectations of the public for these transport               facilities at least on the existing two routes               have   been   aroused  and  have   created   a               particular   need   which  has   to   be   met               temporarily   till  regular   operations   are               introduced.  The restrictions put by the first               proviso to s. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act and               which  has been emphasized in the decision  of               their Lordships of the M.P. High Court in Shri               Ram  Khanna  v.  Raingopal  Satyanarain  (1961               M.P.L.J.  notes  121)  will  not  operate   in               sanctioning  a further grant for a  period  of               four months till nearly the end of March  when               the  academic year may end for a large  number               of students availing of this facility.                     A temporary permit for a period of  four               months  from the date of expiry, i.e.,  28-11-               1964, on the routes and timings covered by the               previous  order of ,grant dated  19-9-1964  is               approved. This will stand cancelled if regular               operations    covering   these   routes    are               introduced in the meantime." The 3rd respondent thereupon moved the High Court Of  Madhya Pradesh  on  December  19,  1964 for  grant  of  a  writ  of certiorari  to  quash the order of  the  Regional  Transport Authority  granting temporary permits to the  appellant  for operating  the bus service. The application was  allowed  by the High Court on January 13, 1965 and a writ in the  nature of certiorari was issued quashing the order of the  Regional Transport  Authority  dated  November 25, 1964  by  which  a temporary  permit  was granted to the  appellant.  The  High Court  took  the  view that a  temporary  permit  cannot  be granted  for  any route when there is a permanent  need  for providing transport facilities on that route and it has been decided to invite applications for that purpose. This appeal is  brought, by special leave, by the Madhya Pradesh  ’State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment of the  High Court in the writ petition. Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act states:                     "62. 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.               789               to exceed four months, to authorise the use of               a transport vehicle temporarily--                     (a) for the conveyance of passengers  on               special occasion such as to and from fairs and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             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;               and   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 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."     On  behalf  of the appellant it was  contended,  in  the first place, that there was a particular temporary need  for the provision of transport facilities and the High Court was erroneous in taking view that whenever there was a permanent need  there  could be no temporary need,  and  so  temporary permit  could  not be granted under s. 62(c)  of  the  Motor Vehicles  Act. In our opinion, the argument put  forward  by the learned Solicitor-General on behalf of the appellant  is well-founded  and  must be accepted as correct.  It  appears from  the  order of the Regional  Transport  Authority  that after  the  regular permit granted to respondent No.  3  was can-,  celled there was a shortage of necessary   number  of transport  vehicles on the route and the Regional  Transport Authority thought it fit to provide for this temporary  need until regular operations were introduced and regular permits were granted after following the procedure prescribed  under s. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 62(c) of the  Motor Vehicles   Act states that the Regional Transport  Authority may    grant   a   temporary   permit  meet   a   particular temporary’  need"  and.  we see no reason  why  this  clause should be given any special or restricted meaning. There  is no  antithesis  between a particular temporary  need  and  a permanent  need and it is manifest that these two  kinds  of need :may coexist on a particular route. If, therefore.  the Regional   Transport  Authority  considered  that,  in   the circumstances of the case, there. 790 was  a  particular temporary need, and granted  a  temporary permit  to  the  appellant,  the  action  of  the   Regional Transport Authority cannot be challenged as legally invalid. Reference may be made, in this connection, to s. 62(d) which contemplates  that  temporary  permits  may  be  granted  to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. This sub-section, therefore, contemplates that there may exist  a temporary  need  for transport facilities  on  a  particular route even in case of permanent need for such facilities. We are  accordingly  of  opinion that  the  Regional  Transport Authority  was  right  as  a matter of  law  in  granting  a temporary  permit  to the appellant under s.  62(c)  of  the Motor Vehicles Act in the circumstances of this case and the view expressed by the High Court is not correct.     It  was also contended on behalf of respondent No. 3  by Mr.  Ratnaparkhi that, in any event, the Regional  Transport Authority ought not to have granted a temporary permit for a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

total  period  exceeding  the limit  of  4  months.  Learned Counsel  placed reliance  the words "in any case"  appearing in  s. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act which has  already  been quoted. It was urged that the words "in any case" mean  that under no circumstances a temporary permit can be granted  on any  route for more than a total period of 4 months. We  are of opinion that the words "in any case" do not mean "in  any circumstance".  The section means that at any one  time  the Regional  Transport Authority is not permitted to  issue  to any  person  a  temporary permit for a  period  exceeding  4 months, but if the temporary need persists, as, for example, where ’the formalities under s. 57 are not completed  within a  period  of  4  months,  it  would,  in  our  opinion,  be permissible for the Regional Transport Authority to grant  a second temporary permit in order to meet the temporary need. We  should,  of  course, make it  clear  that  the  Regional Transport  Authority  cannot  abuse its power  :’and  go  on granting temporary permits in quick succession and not ’take speedy  action for completing the procedure under s.  57  of -the Motor Vehicles Act. If upon the facts of any particular case it appears that the Regional Transport Authority is  so abusing  its powers its action is liable to be corrected  by grant  of  a  writ, but ’where such abuse of  power  is  not alleged  or shown the mere fact that the Regional  Transport Authority  has granted a temporary permit for a second  time and  the total duration of the two periods ’is more  than  4 months,   would  not  invalidate  the  second   permit.   We accordingly  reject  the  argument of  learned  Counsel  for respondent No. 3 on this point.     With regard to the construction of s. 62(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act there is divergen of opinion among ,the various High   Courts.   In  Jairam  Dass  v.   Regional   Transport Authority(1) (1) I.L.R. [1956] Rajasthan 1053. 791 it was held by the Rajasthan High Court that in a case where the  Regional Transport Authority was of the view that  the. existing regular bus service was not sufficient to meet  the traffic and decided to increase the number of regular  buses plying  on the route, it had the power to grant a  temporary permit  till  the necessary formalities for  increasing  the regular permits were gone through and that this would amount to  a  temporary need. The same view has been taken  by  the Assam  High Court in Chandi Prasad Mahajan v.  The  Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati(1) in which it was said that s. 62(c)   of the Motor Vehicles Act is quite general in  terms and  is  not restricted to an existing particular  need  but includes   a  particular  temporary  need  created  by   the inability   of  government  or  an  individual  to   provide transport immediately. A contrary view has been expressed by Madras High Court in Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd. v. The Road Traffic   Board,   Madras,C)  by  Kerala   High   Court   in Balagangadharan  v. Regional Transport Board, Quiton,(3)  by Nagpur  High Court in Shah Transport Co., Chhindwara v.  The State  of  Madhya Pradesh,(4) and by Mysore  High  Court  in Mallasattappa v. The Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore.(5)     For the reasons already expressed, we hold that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Jairam Dass v. Regional Transport  Authority(6) and the Assam  High  Court in Chandi Prasad   Mahajan  v.  The  Regional   Transport   Authority, Gauhati(1)  as  to the interpretation and the effect  of  s. 62(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act is correct.     It was submitted on behalf of respondent No. 3 that  the order  of the Regional Transport Authority  dated   November

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

25,  1964  had already expired and  the  Regional  Transport Authority  had  invited  fresh  applications  for  permanent permit  by Gazette notification dated December 14, 1964.  It was  contended by Mr. Ratnaparkhi that any declaration  that this  Court may make with regard to the grant  of  temporary permit  dated November 25, 1964 would be academic.  But  the Solicitor-General submitted on behalf of the appellant  that it was necessary for this Court to declare the true position in law, so that in consideration of fresh applications for a temporary permit in future no mistake may be made. The  view taken  by the High Court in the judgment under appeal  would bind the Regional Transport Authorities in the State  unless it is set aside. We agree with the contention of  Solicitor- General  and  consider that, in the  circumstances  of  this case, the question is not totally academic. (1) I.L.R. [1952] Assam 9. (2) A.I.R. 1948 Madras 400. (3) A.I.R. 1958 Kerala 144. (4) A.I.R. 1952 Nagpur 353. (5) A.I.R. 1959 Mysore 114. (6) I.L.R. [1956] Rajasthan 1053. 792     We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order passed.  by  the  High Court dated,  January  13.  1965  and declare that the order of the Regional’ Transport  Authority dated  November 25. 1964 granting a temporary permit to  the appellant  is  legally valid. There will be  no  order  with regard: to costs of this appeal.                                Appeal allowed. 793