# D. PAPIAH v. MY~ORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUl'iAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] 3 S.C.R. 28
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-12-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1153 of 1975
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-papiah-v-my-ore-state-transport-appellate-tribul-ial-ors-6779
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
28
D. PAPIAH
v.
MY~ORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUl'iAL & ORS.
December 18, 1975
IV. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J
Motor Vehicles Act, __1939-Section
45(1)-Juri.sdic1io11
to
1-:ra11t
inter~
regional permits, when the proposed route or area falls i1t two or 111ore regions
lying within the same State vests either with the Regional Transport Authority
of the region in which the 111ajor portion of the proposed rou.te or area lies, or
lVith the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed ta
keep the vehicle or vehicles, in case the:. portion of the proposed route or a1"e11
in each of the regions is approxi1nately equal-Meaning of the tenn "area" in
the first proviso to s. 45(1)-Whethe.lt' "motorable tract in the region" or geographical area".
Section 45(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a general provision regulating applications for inter-regional route-permits within a State requires an application to be made to the appropriate Regional Transport Authority mentionedfn the proviso thereto namely, either to the Regional Transport Authority of the
region in \Vhich the major portion, o( the proposed route or area lies or to the
Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the
vehicle or vehicles in case the portion of the proposed ronte or area in each
of the regions are approximately equal.
The c1ppcllant applied for a contract carriage permit that \Vould be valid'
throughout the St<ite of Karnataka, \vhich meant that he proposed
to
use
his vehicle in all the nineteen regions, to the Regional Transport
Authority,
1'.·tandya, \Vho granted him on 8-2-1972 a contract ca1Tiage permit valid for the
entire State of Karnataka. The permit was granted as Mandya region has. more
motorable roads than any other district in the State.
On appear preferred by
the State Road Transport Corporation, taking the view that geographically
'.\Iandya region was smaller' in area and, as such, the jurisdiction of the Regional
Transport Authority, Mandya was ousted, the 'permit granted to the appellant
\Vils cancelled by thfl StHte Transport Appellate Tribunal by its 0,rder dated
19-8-1972, resulting in a \\Tit proceedings before the
Karnataka High Court
\vhich \Vas dismissed.
On appeal by Special Leave, the Court,
HELD : ( 1) The word "route" which has been used in association \Vith
"area specifically notified by the S:ate Government".
However. the terms. and
''a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor
vehicle between one terminus and another".
Section 2(1) defines "area" as
'·area specifically notified by the State Government".
However. the terms and
expressions defined in s. 2 will apply only if there is nothing repugnant in the
subject or context.
The first proviso to- s. 45 ( 1) speaks of the route or area
proposed in an application for a permit and, as such. there can be no question
of the State Government specifying the area.
The definition
of "are<i"
in
section 2( 1) has therefore no relevance in this contrx1.
[31 B-01
•
(2) S. 45 uses both the v,:or<ls "route" and "area" whichev>'r is applicable in
Y
a given case.
A routa'. as defined is a line of travel between two termini on a
high'.Y·ay, but the idea of a route as a notional lincl that the definition suggests,
has not been consistently maintained in the Act.
[31 D-E]
(3) A route may mean not only the notional line of travel between one terminus and another, but also the area of the route over which the motor vehicles
ply, yet the two terms are not interchangeable.
"A route is an area plus so1nething more." This "something" is the notional line of travel between the two
termini \Vhich distinguishes a route from an area sin1pliciter.
The first proviso
to s. 45( 1) speaks of "route or area" apparently making a distinction behveen
i
D. PAPIAH v. MYSORE S.T.A.T. (Gupta, J.)
2·9
them to cover applications relatable to either. A contract carriage does not
ply along

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
28
D. PAPIAH
v.
MY~ORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUl'iAL & ORS.
December 18, 1975
IV. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J
Motor Vehicles Act, __1939-Section
45(1)-Juri.sdic1io11
to
1-:ra11t
inter~
regional permits, when the proposed route or area falls i1t two or 111ore regions
lying within the same State vests either with the Regional Transport Authority
of the region in which the 111ajor portion of the proposed rou.te or area lies, or
lVith the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed ta
keep the vehicle or vehicles, in case the:. portion of the proposed route or a1"e11
in each of the regions is approxi1nately equal-Meaning of the tenn "area" in
the first proviso to s. 45(1)-Whethe.lt' "motorable tract in the region" or geographical area".
Section 45(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a general provision regulating applications for inter-regional route-permits within a State requires an application to be made to the appropriate Regional Transport Authority mentionedfn the proviso thereto namely, either to the Regional Transport Authority of the
region in \Vhich the major portion, o( the proposed route or area lies or to the
Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the
vehicle or vehicles in case the portion of the proposed ronte or area in each
of the regions are approximately equal.
The c1ppcllant applied for a contract carriage permit that \Vould be valid'
throughout the St<ite of Karnataka, \vhich meant that he proposed
to
use
his vehicle in all the nineteen regions, to the Regional Transport
Authority,
1'.·tandya, \Vho granted him on 8-2-1972 a contract ca1Tiage permit valid for the
entire State of Karnataka. The permit was granted as Mandya region has. more
motorable roads than any other district in the State.
On appear preferred by
the State Road Transport Corporation, taking the view that geographically
'.\Iandya region was smaller' in area and, as such, the jurisdiction of the Regional
Transport Authority, Mandya was ousted, the 'permit granted to the appellant
\Vils cancelled by thfl StHte Transport Appellate Tribunal by its 0,rder dated
19-8-1972, resulting in a \\Tit proceedings before the
Karnataka High Court
\vhich \Vas dismissed.
On appeal by Special Leave, the Court,
HELD : ( 1) The word "route" which has been used in association \Vith
"area specifically notified by the S:ate Government".
However. the terms. and
''a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor
vehicle between one terminus and another".
Section 2(1) defines "area" as
'·area specifically notified by the State Government".
However. the terms and
expressions defined in s. 2 will apply only if there is nothing repugnant in the
subject or context.
The first proviso to- s. 45 ( 1) speaks of the route or area
proposed in an application for a permit and, as such. there can be no question
of the State Government specifying the area.
The definition
of "are<i"
in
section 2( 1) has therefore no relevance in this contrx1.
[31 B-01
•
(2) S. 45 uses both the v,:or<ls "route" and "area" whichev>'r is applicable in
Y
a given case.
A routa'. as defined is a line of travel between two termini on a
high'.Y·ay, but the idea of a route as a notional lincl that the definition suggests,
has not been consistently maintained in the Act.
[31 D-E]
(3) A route may mean not only the notional line of travel between one terminus and another, but also the area of the route over which the motor vehicles
ply, yet the two terms are not interchangeable.
"A route is an area plus so1nething more." This "something" is the notional line of travel between the two
termini \Vhich distinguishes a route from an area sin1pliciter.
The first proviso
to s. 45( 1) speaks of "route or area" apparently making a distinction behveen
i
D. PAPIAH v. MYSORE S.T.A.T. (Gupta, J.)
2·9
them to cover applications relatable to either. A contract carriage does not
ply along a fixed "routa or routes" but over an "area" which is why an application for a contract carriage permit has to contain a statement as to the proposed area. [31 G-HJ
Dosa Satyanaraya11an1urty etc. v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn., (1961] 1 S.C.R. 642 (644); C. P. C. Motor Serrice,
Mysore v.
The State of Mysore, (1962] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 717 (725); C. P. Sikli Regular
Motor Serrice etc. v. The State of Maharashtra, {1975] (2) S.C.R. 10, followed.
(4)The word "area" in the first proviso to s. 45(1) of" the Act means the area
of motorable: roads within the territorial jurisdiction of a
regional transport
suthority. Except that the territorial jurisdiction of the regional transport authority is fixed in terms of "geographical area"--district-wise in the State of Karnataka-"area" in that wider sense is irrelevant to the purpose of the Act.
[32 B, F]
A
B
(5) The jurisdiction of a regional transport authority to grant an
interregional permit depends on the existing areas of motorable roads when an appliC
l:ation for a permit is made. [32 G]
[On the question of the reasonableness of a provision which requires an
opplication for an inter-regional permit to be made to the Regional Transport
Authority of the region \vhere the major portion of the proposed route or area
lies, the Court observed that this was a matter of policy but added that
the policy has not been stated very clearly, and that instead of leaving the law
in such a "slippery state," the State should clarify it by appropriate legislation
so that the law may be clear and easily ascertainable by the concerned section
D
of the public.]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1153 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
29th November 1974 of the Mysore High Court at Bangal<ire Writ
Petition No. 117 of 1973.
S. V. Gupte, K. R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.
Shyam/a Fappu (Mrs.) for Respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered oy
GUPTA, J.--On the application of the appellant the Regional
Transport Aurhority, Mandya, granted him a contraet carriage permit
on February 8, 1972, valid for the entire State of Karnat".ka. The
grant was cancelled by the Karnataka State Transport Appell"'" Tribunal by its order dated August 19, 1972 on appeal prcferr,:cl by the
third respondent, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. · The
appellanc file<l a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court
dismissed the petition by its order dated November 29. 1974 ai!feeing
with the Appellate Tribunal that the Regional Transport Authority,
Mandya. liad no jurisdiction to grant permits valid throughcut the
State of Karnataka in view of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of
section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act). The correctness of that decision is questioned by the appellant in this appeal by special leave.
Section 45 (1) with its first proviso which is the only part of the
section relevant for the present purpose is in these terms :
General provision as to applications for permits.
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
E
F
G
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J 976] 3 S.C.R.
'"45 (1) Every application for a permit shall be made
to the Regional Transport Authority of .the region in which it
is poposed to use the vehicle or vehicles :
Pr oviJcd that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles
in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of
"the region in which the major portion of the proposed route
or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or
area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the
Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is
proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles : "
As its marginal note indicates, section contains a general provision
regulating applications for permits.
The proviso, quoted above, lays
down that where the applicant for a permit proposes to use his vehicle
in two or more regions in the same State, the application must be made
lo the Regional Trans port Authority within whose jurisdiction the
major portion of the proposed route or area lies.
The appellant had
asked for a contract carriage permit that would be valii;I throughout
the State of Karnataka which meant that he proposed to use his
vehicle in all the different regions lying in the State.
The second proviso to section 44 ( 1) of the Act lays down that the area specified as
the region of a Regional Transport Authority
shall
not be less
than an entire district, or the whole area of a Presidency town.
In the State of Karnataka there are 19 Regional Transport Authorities,
one for each district in the State. In terms of the first proviso to section 45(1), an application for an inter-regional permit that the appellant was asking for had to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region that included the major portion of the 2roposed area.
The question debated before the appellate tribunal and the High Court
was whether the area lying within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Transport Authority, Mandya, was larger than the area within
the
region of any other Regional Transport Authority in the State, and in
that context the meaning of the term 'area' in the first proviso to
section 45 ( 1) arose for consideration.
According to the applicant
for the permit, 'area' in section 45 meant the extent of motorable tract
in the region, and the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, agreeing
with this interpretation of the word 'area' found that the 'Mandya
Region has more motorable roads than any other district in the State".
The appellate tribunal and the High Courl both refused to accept this
meaning of 'area' which they held to mean plain geographical area
and as the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, was admittedly not
the largest district in that State, the High Court dismissed the writ
petition and affirmed the decision of the appellate tribunal that the
grant of permit was without jurisdiction.
Before proceeding to consider the merits of the rival contentions as
to the meaning of the word 'area' in the first proviso to section 45 (l.),
it would be helpful to refer to certain other provisions of the Act which
seem to be relevant in this context.
The appellant had asked for a
contract carriage permit.
Section 2(3) defies a contract carriage as
a motor vehicle which carries passengers for hire or reward under a
contract for the use of the vehicles as a whole either on a time basis or
•
: •
D. PAPIAH v. MYSORE S.T.A.T. (Gupta, J.)
31
from one point to another, and in both cases witho11t stopping to
pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in
the contract. A motor vehicle is defined in section 2(18) as a mechanically propelled vehicle 'adapted for use upon roads'. Section 49 lays
down the particulars that an application for a contract carriage permit
shall contain, and the 'area' for which the permit is required is one
of the matters that the application must state. The word route which
has been used in association with 'area' in section 45 ( 1) is defined by
section 2(28A) as "a line of travel which specifies the highway which
may be traversed by a motor vehicle· between" one terminus and
another." Section 2(1) defines 'area' as follows:-
" "area", in relation to any provision of this Act, means
such area as the State Government may, having regard to the
requirements of that provision, specify by notification in th~
Official Gazette;"
The terms and expressions defined in section 2 will apply o~ly if
there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context as
the opcni ng
words of the section indicate. The first proviso to section 45 (1) speab
of the route or area proposed in an application for a permit and, as
such, there can be no question here of the State Government specifying
the area. Clearly, the definition of area in section 2 (I) bas no relevance in this context. The question therefore ren1ains to be ans\\·crccl.
-wh~ther 'area' in section 45 (1) has been used in the wider sense of
geographical area, or it means only the area of motorable roads ? The
section uses both the words, 'route' and 'area', whiChcver is applicable
in a given case. A route as defined is a line of travel between two termini on a highway, but the idea of a route as a notional line that the
definition suggests has not been consistantly maintained in the Act. In
Dosa Satyanarayanamurty etc. v. The Andhra Pradesh State
Road
Transport Corpn. (') this Court observed : ''There is no inherent inconsistency betv,.'een an "area" and a ''route".
The proposed ruutc
is also an area limited to the route proposed."
A similar observation was made in C.P.C. Motor Service, Mysore
v.
The State of
Mysore(') that in the scheme of the Act, by the word "route" is meant
"not only the notional line but also the actual road' over which the
omnibuses run". Of course, it would not be correct to say that the
Act recognizes no distinction between 'route' and 'area'. A route may
mean not only the notional line of travel between one terminus and
another, but also the area of the road over which the motor Ychiclcs
ply, yet the two terms are not interchangeable; as pointed out in C.P.
Sikh Regular Motor Service etc. v. The State of Maharashtra,(") "a
route is an area plus something more".
This
"something"
is
the
notional line of travel between two termini which distinguishes a route
from an area simpliciter.
The first proviso to sect.ion 45 (1) speaks of
"route or area" apparently making a distinction between them to
cover applications relatable to either.
A contract carriage does
not
ply along a fixed route or routes but over an area, which is . why an
application for a contract carriage permit has to contain a statement
as to the proposed area.
(I) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 642 (644).
(2) [1962Supp. (11 S.C.R. 717 (725).
(3) [!975] 2 S.C.R. 10.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J 976] 3 S.C.R.
All the decisions to which we have referred above have taken thi:
view that by area is meant the road, the physical tract, over which fhe
motor vehicles ply without reference to any notional line of travel. Of
course, this meaning was given to the word 'area' in the context of the
provisions of the Act considered in these cases, in none of which section 45 came up for consideration.. We do not however find
any
reason to think that 'area' in section 45 (I) has a different connotation.
Except that the territorial jurisdiction of the regional transport authorities is fixed in terms of geographical area-districtwisc in the State of
Karnataka-'area' in that widu fense is irrelevant to the purposes of
the Act. Counsel for the respondent, Mysore State Road Transport
Corporation, Bangalore, built an argument on the provisions of section
42 of the Act that the meaning of 'area' is not restricted only to the
area of.motorable roads in a region. Section 42 prohibits the use of a
transport vehicle in any public place except in accordance with the
conditions of a valid permit.
A transport vehicle includes a motor
vehicle used for the carriage of passengers [section 2(33) and section
2(25)]. Public place has been defined by section 2(24) of the Act as
"'road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to
which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or
stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage·'. It was argued that a contract carriage which does not ply on
a fixed route could be used in any public place which need not necessarily be a road; this, according to counsel, indicated that the word
area occurring in section 45 ( 1) meant geographical area and
not
motorable roads only.
We do not find it possible to accept this contention.
Assuming that a contract carriage could be used in places
which are not really roads, the fact remains that a contract carriage
being a motor vehicle is intended for use upon roads, and any casual
use of it in places other than roads is not decisive on the interpretation
of the word area. The prohibition against the use of transport vehicles
in public places which are not roads serves to repel a possible claim that
for using a motor vehicle in places which cannot be called roads no
permit was necessary.
We hold therefore that the word area in the
first proviso to section 45 (I ) of the Act means the area of motorablc
roads within the territorial jurisdiction of a regional transport authority. The Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, held that
it had
within its jurisdiction the largest area o[ motorable roads in the State
of Karnmaka. and this finding has not been disturbed by the appellate
tribunal.
The appellate tribunal thought that the expression "motorabie roads" was vague as the area con1prising of motorablc roads
"would be changing from time to time", but the
jurisdiction of a
regional transport authority to grant an inter-regional permit depelltds
on the existing area of motorable roads when an application for a permit js niadc.
Jn the course of arguments before us doubts were expressed on the
reasonableness of a provision which requires an application for
an
inter-regional permit to be made to the regional transport authority of
the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area
lies when section 63 of the Act provides elaborate checks and Jays
,
J
•
'
..
D. PAPIAH v. MYSORE S.T.A.T. (Gupta, /.)
33
down conditions· for the validation of permits for use outside the region
in which it has been granted. It was submitted that in view of the
provisions of section 63 there was no point in insisting on the application being made to the Regional Transport Authority of any particular region. We sec the logic of this submission, but this is a matter
of policy on which the court has no say.
However, the policy it<clf
does not appear to have been slated very clearly. On the provisions as
they arc it is difficult to say that the construction put forward on behalf
of the third respondent is altogether implausible. It is also true that
there can be practical difficulties, whichever interpretation was adopted.
This being the position we should have thought that instead of leaving
the law in such a slippery state, the State should clarify it by appropriate
legislation so that the law may be clear and easily ascertainable by the
concerned section of the public.
The appeal is allowed and the impugned order including the orucr
of the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal is set aside. We make
it clear that all we have decided in this case is that the Regional Transc
port Authority, Mandya, had jurisdiction to issue the permit to
the
appellant, whether the permit satisfies the other conditions of a valid
inter-regional permit did not arise for consideration in this appeal. In
the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
D
S.R .
Appeal allowed