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:
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.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
(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
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
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