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

PETITIONER: U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGOPMA; TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/09/1998

BENCH: A.S.ANAND, B.N.KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  ORDER C.A.No.4637 of 1998 ( @ SLP(C) No.  13937/92) Levea granted. The short question requiring our consideration is  : whether   the   U.P.   State   Road   Transport  Corporation (hereinafter the ’Corporation’) is  required  to  renew  the permits  obtained  by  it  to ply its vehicles on a notified route during the subsistence of a scheme ?  The  High  Court has answered the question in the affirmative. In short, the facts leading to  the  filing  of  the appeal are  that  the  Regional  Manager,  U.P.   State Road Transport  Corporation,  Gorakhpur  requested  the  Regional Transport  Authorities  for  issuance  of permits fro routes covered by a scheme reserved for exclusive operation by  the Corporation.   In response to the Regional Manager’s letter, he was informed that according to the provisions of  Section 58(2)  (a)  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter the ’Act’) permits could be issued for a maximum period of three years and were thereafter  required  to  be  renewed.    The appellants  were  informed  that on payment of permit fee as well as the prescribed fee under Rule 55 of the U.P.   Motor Vehicles   Rules,  1940  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the ’Rules’) the permit issued to the Corporation should be  got renewed.  The appellants questioned the directions issued by the authorities by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court. The High Court vide its judgment dated 25.1.1991 allowed the Writ Petition  partially.   it was held that the Corporation was required to  apply  for  renewal  of  the  permit  under section  68-F(1)(E)  of  the  Act  for the period prescribed under sub-section 58(2)(a) if the Act read with the relevant rules and on making such an application,  permit  issued  to the Corporation would be renewed.  The High Court did notice that  Rule 10(4) of the Rules lays down that a permit issued to the Corporation  is  to  remain  valid  till  the  scheme remains in force but came to the conclusion that such a Rule could not override or be inconsistent with the provisions of section  58(2)(a)  of  the  Act  and,  therefore,  held that notwithstanding Rule 10(4) of  the  Rules,  renewal  of  the permit was essential to make it valid for the renewed period to ply  the  vehicles  by  the  Corporation.  This appeal by

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

special leave calls in question that judgment and  order  of the High Court. We have heard the learned counsel  for  the  parties and examined the record. Chapter   IV  of  the  Act  deals  with  control  of transport vehicles including the provisions for issuance  of permits and the manner of renewal of the same. This Chapter, however,  is  general  in nature and deals with non-notified routes.  Chapter  IV-A  of  the  Act  on  the   other   hand exclusively  contains  special  provisions  relating  to the State  Transport  Undertakings  and  concerns  itself   with notified  routes.  This  chapter  was inserted by Act 100 of 1956 w.e.f. 16.2.1967. Section 68-B of the Act which occurs in Chapter IV-A reads.:            "68-B  Chapter  IV-A  to  override Chapter IV and            other laws - The provisions of this  Chapter  and            the  rules  and orders made thereunder shall have            effect  notwithstanding   anything   inconsistent            therewith  contained in Chapter IV of this Act or            any other law for the time being in force  or  in            any  instrument  having  effect  by virtue of any            such law." A  bare  reading  of  section 68-B (supra), thus, shows that Chapter  III  A  of  the  Act  has  an   overriding   effect notwithstanding  anything contained in any other law for the time being in force including Chapter IV of the Act  to  the extent of anything being inconsistent with what is contained in Chapter IV A. Section   68-F   (I-E)  (Chapter  IV-A)  relates  to issuance of permits to the State Transport Undertakings.  it reads :            "68-F  Issue  of  permits  to   State   Transport            undertakings   (1)  Where,  in  pursuance  of  an            approved scheme, any State transport  undertaking            applies  (in  such  transport undertaking applies            (in such manner as may be prescribed by the State            Government in this behalf for  a  stage  carriage            permit or a public carrier’s permit or a contract            carriage  permit in respect of a notified area or            notified route, the [State Transport Authority in            any case where the said area  or  route  lies  in            more  than  one region and the regional Transport            Authority in any other  case]  shall  issue  such            permit   to   the  State  transport  undertaking,            notwithstanding   anything   to   the    contrary            contained in Chapter IV.            (1-E) Where a State transport undertaking applies            for   renewal  of  a  permit  within  the  period            specified in sub section (2A) of Section 58,  the            State  Transport Authority or, as the case may be            the regional Transport  Authority,  shall,  renew            such  permit,  notwithstanding  anything  to  the            contrary contained in Chapter IV". Section  68(1)  confers  Rule  making  powers on the State Government.  Sub-clause (cc)  of  clause  (2)  thereof enables  the  State  Government to frame Rules regarding the manner  in  which  applications  under  sub-section  (1)  of Section 68 F are to be made.  The U.P.  State Road Transport Services  (Development)  Rules,  1974 have been framed under the aforesaid Rule making power.  Rule 10 thereof deals with the subject.  It provides :            "Rule 10.  Application for permit for services of            stage carriage (Section 68-1(2)(cc)            1.An  application  for stage carriage permit and

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

          public  carrier’s  permit  of  contract  carriage            permit in respect of the notified routes/areas in            pursuance of the approved scheme shall be made on            behalf of the State Transport Underrating in Form            III.            2.  Upon   receipt   of   an  application  under            sub-rule (1) the State Transport Authority as the            case  may  be  issued  a  permit  to  the   State            transport  Undertaking  for the notified route or            notified area accordingly.            3.   Every  permit issued as aforesaid shall in 2            parts namely, Para ’A’ and Part  ’B’  and  be  in            From ’IV’.            4.    The permit issued as aforesaid shall remain            valid till the scheme remains in force.            5.     There  shall be paid a fee of Rs. 5/- only            in respect of an application for  a  permit  made            before the Regional Transport Authority and a fee            of  Rs.  10/- only in respect of such application            made before the State Transport Authority.            6.    Duplicate permit to any part of the  permit            shall  be issued by the State Transport Authority            or Regional Transport Authority concerned as  the            case may be, on a payment of Rs. 5/- for Part ’A’            and mutilated or lost." A  combined  reading of Section 68-B, 68-F (I-E) and Rule 10 (supra) shows that insofar as  notified  routes  are concerned,  for which the Corporation has an exclusive right to ply their vehicles under the scheme framed under the Act, the duration of the permit obtained by the  Corporation  for playing  those  vehicles is co-terminus with the life of the scheme. Sub-clause (4) of Rule  10  unmistakably  says  "the permit  issued  as  aforesaid  shall  remain  valid till the scheme remains in force". The Division Bench of the  High  Court,  it  appears overlooked   the   distinction  between  the  provisions  of Chapters IV and IVA of the Act.  So far  as  Chapter  IV  is concerned,  as  already  noticed,  it deals with essentially speaking, non-notified routes.  Section 58(2)(a) of the  Act which  occurs  in  Chapter  IV  applies only to non-notified routes and  not  to  the  notified  routes,  even  when  the Corporation  may  also  be  playing  their  vehicles  on the non-notified routes.  However, so far as notified routes are concerned, Chapter IVA of the  Act  which  contains  special provisions  governs  the  field  and  being "social" it over rides the "general provisions" of  Chapter  IV.    Thus  the grant  of  permit to the Corporation for playing its vehicle on notified routes remains valid till the scheme remains  in force.   There  is  thus no need for renewal of the existing permit during the period when the scheme is in force.    The Corporation  does not need to make any fresh application for renewal of the permit after 3 years or 5 years  so  long  as the scheme  is in force.  The necessity to seek renewal of a permit after the expiry of  the  period  prescribed  in  the permit  is only relevant where the permit is granted even to the Corporation under Chapter IV of the Motor  Vehicles  Act and not  under  Chapter  IV  A  of the Act.  The view of the authorities to the contrary which has  been  upheld  by  the Division  bench  of the High Court is thus clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Thus, for what has been  said  above,  the  impugned judgment  and  order  dated 25.1.1991 made in Writh Petition No.1006/1988 is hereby set aside. The effect of  this  order would  be that the Writ Petition would stand allowed and the permit obtained by the Corporation to ply  the  vehicles  on

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

the  notified  routes will continue to remain valid till the scheme is in force and would not require any renewal  during the subsistence of the scheme. No costs. C.A.  No.  .......  of 1998 (@ SLP(C) No.  12732 of 1992) In  this  appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 12732/95, which calls in question the judgment and order of  the  High Court  dated  12.8.1992  made  in Writ Petition No. 10837 of 1992, the Division Bench of  the  High  Court  followed  its earlier  judgment  in  U.P. State Road transport Corporation vs. The Regional  Transport  Authority  Gorakhpur.  For  the reasons  stated  by us in the appeal filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation  [C.A.  No.  ........  of  1998(@ SLP(C)  No. 13937 of 1992], this appeal also succeeds and is allowed on the same terms as that appeal.