JUDGMENT
Chandresh Bhushan, J.
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent of Nagpur High Court, has been preferred by the appellant on being aggrieved by the order dated 9.1.2001, passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 384/1999, dismissing its’ petition for setting aside the order dated 27.3.1997 of the Regional Transport Authority, granting regular stage carriage permit to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the route between Morena to Shankarpura and the order dated 30.11.1998 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, passed in revision against the said order dated 27.3.1997 of the Regional Transport Authority.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No. 3-Ram Kishore Upadhyaya applied for and was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Chambal Area, Morena a new regular permit for the route Morena to Shankarpura via Mudiakheda, Babu Ka Pura, Kheda, Badagaon, Dinmi, Ratiram Ka Pura, Umaria Ka Pura, Rathod Ka Pura, Baba Ki Tekri, Badfara, Ambah, Thara, Pali ka. tal, and Pachpeda for the period from 5.4.1997 to 4.4.2002, three trips daily. A revision petition preferred by the appellant against the grant of stage carriage permit was dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 30.11.1998. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court, which was heard by the learned Single Bench of this Court and dismissed vide its order dated 9.1.2001.
3. The appellant had before the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority, objected against the grant of permit on the ground that the route in question was mostly covered by the Scheme No. 4, which was overruled holding that the route in question involved less than 25 kms. of the nationalized route.
4. However, in the petition preferred and heard by the learned Single Bench, the main objection raised by the appellant was that in view of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to ‘the Act, 1988’ the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant stage permit as it was a new regular permit on a new route, which was not specified by the Government. According to the appellant, after the amendment in Clause (3) of Section 68 of the Act, 1988, by the addition of Sub-clause (ca) the legal position was that it was only the Government which could formulate the route for stage carriages and it was only after formulation of those routes that the concerning Regional Transport Authority could grant permit. This was disputed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. According to them, the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority both had the powers to formulate the routes and grant permit. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition of the appellant observing that if a Notification has been issued by the Government for exercising its power to the State Transport Authority, or Regional Transport Authority, then both these authorities can perform the functions mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Act, 1988, as was clear from the combined reading of Sections 68(1) and 68(3). It was further observed that it is apparent from the reading of sub-clauses of Section 68 that the power of formulation of routes has been vested by virtue of the Notification of the Government under Section 68(1) with the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides at length and perused the record. At this stage, it may also be mentioned that none of the parties disputed this fact that the route in question in the present case was not formulated either by the State Govt. or by the State Transport Authority but it was the Regional Transport Authority, which for the first time, formulated this route and granted the permit.
6. Clause (ca) was added after Clause (c) and before Clause (d) of Sub-section (3) of Section 68 by the Act No. 54 of 1994 and became operative w.e.f. 14.11.1994. This Clause (ca) is reproduced hereunder:
Clause (ca)–Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages.
Second part of Sub-section (3) of Section 68 reads as under:
…State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely….
Thereafter, five Clauses (a) to (d) follow, out of which the above referred Clause (ca) is the fourth one.
7. From the abovementioned language of the said Sub-section (3), it is clear that it was the State Transport Authority subject to the directions issued by the Govt. under Section 67 of the Act, 1988 and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, to exercise and discharge throughout the territory of the State the powers and functions as mentioned in the five clauses following thereafter. Each of these clauses was independent to other. The suggestion made by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that Clause (ca) refers to the dispute under Clause (c), cannot be sustained because had it been so, nothing prevented the legislation from mentioning in Clause (c) itself that the power to settle all disputes and decide all matters including the dispute relating to formulation of routes. Addition of a separate clause as Clause (ca) specifically shows that the intention of the legislation was to have a separate and independent clauses and that the said power or function was not already covered by any of the other clauses of the sub-section. The power or function of the Govt. to formulate routes “for plying stage carriages was conferred by the Sub-section (3) on the State Transport Authority alone and not on the Regional Transport Authority also. This was clear from the plain reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Act, 1988 as a whole. This sub-section had two parts, the second part dealt with the exercise of power and functions enumerated in the said sub-clause by the State Transport Authority only while the first part dealt with duty of the State Transport Authority as well as Regional Transport Authority to give effect to the directions issued under Section 67 of the same Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 68 reads as under:
Section 68(1). The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for the State, a State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in Sub-section (3), and shall in like manner constitute Regional Transport Authorities to exercise and discharge throughout such areas (in this chapter referred to as regions) as may be specified in the notification, in respect of each Regional Transport Authority, the powers and functions conferred by or under this Chapter on such Authorities:
Provided that in the Union Territories, the Administrator may abstain from constituting any Regional Transport Authority.
8. Prom the language of Sub-section (1) as mentioned above, it is more than apparent that first part of it casts a duty on the State Government to constitute in the whole State one State Transport Authority by issuance of a notification in the Official Gazette. The State Transport Authority was to be so constituted to exercising, and discharge the powers and functions specified in Sub-section (3) as discussed hereinbefore.
9. A similar duty is casted on the State Government to constitute a Regional Transport Authorities for areas to be again specified in the notification. These Regional Transport Authorities in that area are to exercise and discharge such powers and functions as were conferred on them by or under Chapter 5 of the Act, 1988. As already seen, Sub-section (3) of Section 68 confers the power to formulate routes for plying stage carriages only on the State Transport Authority, there was no other provision under the chapter conferring similar powers or functions on the Regional Transport Authority. A Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Mithilesh Rani v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. 1997 AIH 771, also held that the power to create route for plying stage carriages after 14th November, 1994 when Sub-clause (ca) came into force, has to be exercised by the State Transport Authority only and cannot be exercised by the Regional Transport Authority in accordance with the principles formulated by the State Government. It was further observed by that Bench that no conclusion other than this one could be drawn from the language used in the concerning provision and we are in full agreement with it. The same conclusion was drawn by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Zamindara Motor Transport Cooperative Society v. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner and Ors. in Civil Writ Petition No. 3313/1998 and in the case of Dharm Chand v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in 1996 (3) WLC 451.
10. In the impugned order, the learned Single Bench has held that Sub-section (3) of Section 68 cannot be read independent of Section 68(1) and after considering the provision of both these sections, it has been held that power can be exercised by the Regional Transport Authority. But, a perusal of the provisions of Section 68 indicates that Sub-section (1) refers to formulation of State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority. First part of Sub-section (1) clearly contemplates that the State Transport Authority is to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in Sub-section (3) while, the Regional Transport Authorities are to exercise and discharge the powers and functions conferred by or under this chapter on such authorities. This clearly indicates that the Regional Transport Authority is to discharge such functions only as were conferred on it under that chapter, whereas for the State Transport Authority, the duties, and functions prescribed in Sub-section (3) are to be exercised. Similarly, in Sub-section (3), a distinction has been made between the different functions. That being so, it has to be held that for the purpose of discharging the functions in Sub-section (3), it is only the State Transport Authority, which is empowered under the Act to take decision and the Act nowhere contemplates discharge of such functions by the Regional Transport Authorities. Thus, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has erred in holding otherwise.
11. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that such an interpretation would create many problems and would almost render grant of new permits or renewal of even existing permits, not possible till detailed routes are formulated by the State Transport Authority. We feel ourselves unable to contribute to this view and it would be for the State Transport Authority to issue necessary guidelines or notification and parties would be free to approach State Transport Authority as they desired. Such an interpretation was also in no way against the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in the case of Mithlesh Garg v. Union of India and Ors. that the statement of objects and reasons of the Act shows that the purpose of bringing in the Act was to liberalize the grant of permits. The permits could still be liberally granted. Only the formulation of routes were to be first made by the State Transport Authority. The judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Quilon Dist. Private Bus Operators Association and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also does not help in the light of observations and findings recorded by us hereinbefore.
12. Thus, in view of the above position, we are unable to uphold the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Bench and hold that the Regional Transport Authority cannot perform all the functions mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section, 68 of the said Act, 1988. The impugned: order is, therefore, set aside and-the orders, dated 30.11.1998 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and dated 27.3.1997 of the Regional Transport Appellate Tribunal, granting permit to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are quashed. This appeal is accordingly allowed.