# DURAISWA11Y v. MlJRUGAN BUS SERVICE

- **Citation:** [1986] 2 S.C.R. 68
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-04-02
- **Bench:** E.S. Venkataramiah, H.P. Thakkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/duraiswa11y-v-mljrugan-bus-service-9277
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

_Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ss. 45, 57 and 63 read with
Rules .163-A, 163-B and 208 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules
1940 -
Inter-regional permit - Application for variation of
existing permit involving extension of route/area lying in the
jurisdiction of another RTA - Whether to be made to RTA whichz--
granted permit or to RTA which has jurisdiction over area in
respect of which extension is sought.
'
The appellant was the holder of an inter-regional permit
in respect of a motor vehicle plying on the town service route
No.IA from Erode· Railway Station to Tiruchengode. The major
portion of the route mentioned in the permit of the appellant·
was lying within the jurisdiction of the Regional T<ansport
Authority of Periyar and the smaller portion lay within the
District of Salem. The appellant applied to the Regional
Transport · Authority of · the District of Periyar which had"'
issued the aforesaid permit for its variation involving, inter
alia, conversion of the town service into a mofussil service
and extension of route from Tiruchengode to Salem. If the
route in respect of which extension is sought is added then
··. the major portion of the total route would be within the
District of Salem. The Regional Transport _Authority aftery
notifying the application for variation under section 57(3) of
the
Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1939
and
considering
the
representations/objections thereto, rejected the application
'
on the ground that it was not proper for it to grant the
extension since the entire sector in respect of which the
extension was sought lay within Salem District and that the
said sector was well-served by stage carriage services.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Transport
Authority at Periyar, the appellant preferred an appeal before
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed
the appeal and granted the variation (including the extension)
DURAISWA11Y v. MlJRUGAN BUS SERVICE
69
~applied for with slight modificati~n. Thereupon, some of the
objectors to the ·original application for variation filed
befo:e the High Court civil revision petition3 and writ
petition against the order of the Tribunal. The High Court
allowed the petitions holding that the Regional Transport
Authority, Periyar had no jurisdiction to entertain the
application for variation since the entire route in,respect of
~w'!rlch extension was sought lay within the jurisdiction of the
Salem Regional
Transport Authority and,
therefore,
the
proceeding3 commenced with the said application were liable to
be quashed. Hence this appeal by special leave •
_,
Allowing
the
appeal
on
the
question whether
an
application for the variation of an existing permit involving
lthe extension of the route or the area , specified in the
'permit, where the portion of the route or area in respect of
which
extension
is
sought. lies
entirely
within
the
jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority which had not
granted the permit, should be made to the Regional Transport
Authority which had granted the permit or to the Regional
Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the route or
area in respect of which extension is sought lies,
HEID: 1. Section 45 of the Act does not apply to the
;.case of a variation of permit and that when a variation of a
permit is sought the application for the grant of such
variation should be made to the Regional Transport Authority
which has granted the permit even though the entire route or
-
area in respect of which extension is sought lies in another
region or a major portion of the entire route (including the
-.:;ew route or area) lies within another region. On such
application being made it is the duty of the Regional
Transport Authority which has granted_the permit to consider
whether the variation sought should be sanctioned in the
public interest or not. If that Regional Transport Authority
grants variation prayed for, then the concurrence of the other
Regional Transport Authority would have to be sought in
accordance wit

## Text

_Characters 0–39,961 of 68,463. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39961 for what follows._

·----------------------------------
A
B
c
D
E
F
GH
< 68
M. DURAISWAMY
v. <
- MIJRUGAN BUS SERVICE & ORS.
APRIL 2, 1986
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND H.P. THAKKAR, JJ.)
_Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ss. 45, 57 and 63 read with
Rules .163-A, 163-B and 208 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules
1940 -
Inter-regional permit - Application for variation of
existing permit involving extension of route/area lying in the
jurisdiction of another RTA - Whether to be made to RTA whichz--
granted permit or to RTA which has jurisdiction over area in
respect of which extension is sought.
'
The appellant was the holder of an inter-regional permit
in respect of a motor vehicle plying on the town service route
No.IA from Erode· Railway Station to Tiruchengode. The major
portion of the route mentioned in the permit of the appellant·
was lying within the jurisdiction of the Regional T<ansport
Authority of Periyar and the smaller portion lay within the
District of Salem. The appellant applied to the Regional
Transport · Authority of · the District of Periyar which had"'
issued the aforesaid permit for its variation involving, inter
alia, conversion of the town service into a mofussil service
and extension of route from Tiruchengode to Salem. If the
route in respect of which extension is sought is added then
··. the major portion of the total route would be within the
District of Salem. The Regional Transport _Authority aftery
notifying the application for variation under section 57(3) of
the
Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1939
and
considering
the
representations/objections thereto, rejected the application
'
on the ground that it was not proper for it to grant the
extension since the entire sector in respect of which the
extension was sought lay within Salem District and that the
said sector was well-served by stage carriage services.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Transport
Authority at Periyar, the appellant preferred an appeal before
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed
the appeal and granted the variation (including the extension)
DURAISWA11Y v. MlJRUGAN BUS SERVICE
69
~applied for with slight modificati~n. Thereupon, some of the
objectors to the ·original application for variation filed
befo:e the High Court civil revision petition3 and writ
petition against the order of the Tribunal. The High Court
allowed the petitions holding that the Regional Transport
Authority, Periyar had no jurisdiction to entertain the
application for variation since the entire route in,respect of
~w'!rlch extension was sought lay within the jurisdiction of the
Salem Regional
Transport Authority and,
therefore,
the
proceeding3 commenced with the said application were liable to
be quashed. Hence this appeal by special leave •
_,
Allowing
the
appeal
on
the
question whether
an
application for the variation of an existing permit involving
lthe extension of the route or the area , specified in the
'permit, where the portion of the route or area in respect of
which
extension
is
sought. lies
entirely
within
the
jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority which had not
granted the permit, should be made to the Regional Transport
Authority which had granted the permit or to the Regional
Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the route or
area in respect of which extension is sought lies,
HEID: 1. Section 45 of the Act does not apply to the
;.case of a variation of permit and that when a variation of a
permit is sought the application for the grant of such
variation should be made to the Regional Transport Authority
which has granted the permit even though the entire route or
-
area in respect of which extension is sought lies in another
region or a major portion of the entire route (including the
-.:;ew route or area) lies within another region. On such
application being made it is the duty of the Regional
Transport Authority which has granted_the permit to consider
whether the variation sought should be sanctioned in the
public interest or not. If that Regional Transport Authority
grants variation prayed for, then the concurrence of the other
Regional Transport Authority would have to be sought in
accordance with either section 63(1) of the Act or where there
re rules made corresponding to rules 163-A, 163-B and 208 of
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, as far as may be, in
accordance with such rules. The decision of the High Court is,
therefore, liable to be reversed. (96 F-H;. 97 A-BJ
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A , ,
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1986] 2 s.c.R.
l.(ii) The Judgment of the High Court is entirely basedfr
on . its decision on the question of jurisdiction of the
Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District to entertain
the application. Since there were other contentions raised by
the parties which have not been considered by the High Court,
the case is remanded to the High Court to consider the other
contentions raised in the case. If the High Court finds it+
necessary to remand the case either to the Tribunal or to the
Regional Transport Authority in the light of the submissions
to _be made before it; it is open to the High Court to remand
the case either to the tribunal or to· the Regional Transport
Authority, as the case may be. (97 B-0)
.
2.(i) Section 45(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
provides that every application for a permit shall be made to-Y:-
the Regional Transport Authority_ of the region in which it is
proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles. The first proviso to
sub-s/ (l) of s. 45 of the Act provides that if l.t is proposed
to use the vehicle or vehicles . in two or m:ire regions lying
within the -same State, the application shall be made to the
Regional Trarisport 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. Sub-s. (8) of s. 57 of the Act (as amended by Tamil
Nadu Act No •. 3 of 1964) which deals with the procedure to be
followed by the holder of a permit who seeks such variation,
does not expressly prescribe the Regional Transport Authority
to which an application for the variation of a permit has to ,
be made where the route or area in respect-of which extension,,.r
is sought lies outside the jurisdiction of the Regional/
Transport Authority· which has granted the permit but within
the jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority. The
said sub-section is silent· about it. It, however, provides
that an application for the variation of a permit which
involves extension or curtailment of the route or area
specified in the ·permit should be treated as an application
for grant of a new permit. In sub-s. 2 of s. 58 of the Act a
similar language is adopted. That sub-section provides that a
permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of
as if it were an application for a pend.t. An application for
renewal of a permit and an application for variation of a
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE
71
-<
permit have both to be treated as applications for a new
permit and in both the cases the procedure prescribed for the
grant of a new permit has to be followed. The said procedure
includes all the steps mentioned in sub-ss. (3),(4), (5) and
(7) of s. 57 of the Act. The application should be advertised,
representations and objections thereto should be invited and
the application should be considered at a public hearing at
~ which the applicant and the persons making representations and
objections thereto should be given an opportunity of being
heard either in person or by duly authorised representatives.
-
The question, however, remains whether the words 'shall be
treated as an application for t:ie grant of a new permit' in
sub-s. (8) of s.57 of the Act should be read as meaning that
the Regional Transport Authority which can entertain an
application for variation is the Regional Transport Authority
_,,
--.-
which can entertain an application for a fresh permit in
respect of a stage carriage for the entire route including the
portion in respect of which extension is sought or that the
application for variation can be made
to the Regional
Transport Authority which had granted the permit, but the
procedure prescribed under s. 57 of the Act for the grant of a
permit should be followed. [78 E-G; 85 F-H; 86 A-Fl
2.(ii) Sub-section (1) of s. 63 of the Act, however,
provides that except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit
granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region
shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has
been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that
other region. Rules 163-A, 163-B
and 208 of the Tamil Nadu
""'
Motor Vehicle Rules framed under the Act provide for an
<
-
~alternative procedure to be followed when the motor vehicle is
- to be operated in two or more regions inside the State of
Tamil Nadu as authorised by s. 63(1) of the Act. Rule 163-A
says that the Regional Transport Authority of any one region
may, subject to the proviso to s.45 of the Act, grant a permit
to be valid in any other region within the State without the
countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of the
~
other region or of each of the other regions concerned and it
-Y shall as soon as possible send copies of proceedings to the
concerned regions. The Regional Transport Authority granting a
permit under sub-rule (1) of Rule 163-A of Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules is required before granting a permit in case of
a stage carriage permit to seek the concurrence of the other
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c,.
D
E
.F
,G
H
72
\
SUPREME CO!JR1 REPORTS
[ 1986) 2 S.C.R.
·Regional Transport Authority. Rule 163-B of Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules provides that the provisions of Rule 163-A may
be applied to variation, extension and curtailment of routes
and to grant or refusal of endorsement as they apply to the
grant of a permit. It is significant that this.rule does not
say that an application for variation would be subject to the
provisions of 8.45 of the Act but the provisions of Rule 163-A
·shall as far as may be applied to variation of a permit. There
is no express requirement in this Rule to comply with the
provisions of s.45 of the.Act. (94 H; 95 A-DJ
2. (Hi) The words in sub-s. (8) of s. 57 of the Act "An
application to vary the conditions of any permit... by the
variation, extension or curtailment of the route or the area
specified in the permit ••• shall be treated as an application
for the grant of a new permit" create a legal fiction of
limited character only for the purpose of making the procedure
prescribed in sub-s. (3) to (7) of s.57 applicable. A permit
is a docliment issued by a certain Regional Transport Authority
authorising the use of a ·transport vehicle in a particular
way. That can be varied or· modified only by the authority
issuing it or by an authority exercising appellate or
revisional jurisdiction over it and not by another authority
of equal power exercising jurisdiction on another region. In
the case of an inter-regional route also a pe=it as mentioned
earlier should be issued first by the Regional Transport
Authority having territorial jurisdiction as provided in s. 45
of the Act. If a part of the route mentioned·in that permit
lies outside its region but within the jurisdiction of another
Regional Transport Authority, the other Regional Transport
Authority may either countersign the permit or may refuse to
countersign it under s. 63(1) of the Act. If the other
Regional Transport Authority countersigns the permit then on
the basis of the said permit it would be open to the holder of
the permit to run his vehicle along the portion of the route
lying within the other region. If the permit is not so
countersigned he would not be able to do so. But on the permit
being countersigned, the permit would not cease to be the
permit of the authority which issued it originally. To
'countersign' means 'to sign opposite to, along side of or in·
addition to another signature 'or' to add one's signature to a
document (already signed by another) for authentication or
confirmation'. It follows logically that when a variation of
T'IT!FATSIJAMY v, MURllGAN JlllS SERVIl"E
73
-/the permit is sought the Regional Transport Authority which
issued the permit originally must be first approached and it
'
is only after it has accorded its sanction to the variation
prayed for, the counter-signature of the permit so varied may
be sought under s. 63(1) of the Act
frcim the Regional
Transport Authority. It is always open to the· Regional
Transport Authority with.in whose jurisdiction the portion of
the route or area in respect of which extension is sought lies
. .\to refuse to countersign the permit even after an order of
variation has been passed by the authority which hacl granted
the permit originally. If it countersigns such a permit, the
-
grant of variation by the Regional Transport Authority which
_,
(bas granted the permit would be effective, otherwise not •. At
"'any rate there is opportunity for both the Regional Transport
~thorities to consider whether the vehicle in respect of
which the permit is given can be allowed to move along the new
route or area if the above view is taken. Any other construction of the
provisions of the Act would be contrary to the
entire scheme of the Act. [90 H; 91 A-H; 92 A~]
2,(iv) Where totally a new route is sought to be
.. included by an application to vary the conditions of the
~permit or the alteration of the route sought by such an
application is of such a drastic character that it bec;omes
substantially a new route, the application may be treated as
an application for grant of a new permit and may be for that
-
reason rejected by the Regional Transport Authority which
originally granted it. But merely because in a given case the
··-,entire new route or area which is to be included lies within
_,. 'the jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority or a
-, major portion of the total route (including the route in
\;spect of which the extension is sought) lies within the
jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority, it
cannot be said that an application for a new permit has been
made and the proviso of s,45 of the Act would be attracted.
Then the proceeding would not be a proceedlng for variation of
the existing permit but would be a proceeding for the grant of
~ a new permit. [93 D-G]
-y
Shiv Chand Amolak Chand v. Regional Transport Authority
& Anr., [1984] 1 s.c.R. 288, relied upon.
Delhi Administration v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1979]
1 S.C.R. 70, referred to.
A
c
n
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 S.C.R.
In the instant case, the variation that is sought\_
affects both the regions since one part of variation relates
to conversion of the town service into a mof ussil service and
~
reduction of the number of trips within the Periyar District
and another part relates to extension and that extension of
the route in the Salem District cannot be granted without
reducing the numbers of trips within the Periyar District. The
Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District should have
naturally control over its permit and its sanction should
be~
first obtained before seeking the countersignature of the
Salem Regional Transport Authority. If the Regional Transport
Authority of Periyar District comes to the conclusion that ......_
there is need for doing so it may grant the variation sough~
rfor and the said variation would have to be necessarily agaiof.-
countersigned by the Salem Regional Transport Authority sl.nce
the route between Tiruchengode and Salem lies within thE!"
jurisdiction of Salem Regional Transport Authority. Both the
Regional Transport Authorities would ultimately be required to
concur for the variation sought. But if the view expressed by
the High Court is accepted on the Salem Authority sanctioning
the variation sought for by the holder of the permit the
proceedings would come to an end and the Regional Transport A
Authority of Periyar District would have no opportunity to.
express its views at all. Siuce there would not be publication
of the application for variation within the jurisdiction of
the Periyar Regi.onal Transport Authority, the members of the
public, the local authorities, the police authorities etc. --
within its region would also have no opportunity to express
their views on the merits of the case. [92 E-H; 93 A-C]
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1126 of
~
G
H
1986.
_,> ,
From the Judgment and Order dated 20th December, 1985 of
the Madras High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 1773, 1774, 1775, 1926,
2040, 2047, 2159 and 2388 of 1985.
S. Srinivasan for the Appellant.
Dr. Y.S. Chi.tale and
dents.
A. T .M. Sampath for the Respon-YThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
,..
A
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE (VENKATARAMIAH, J.]
75
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant is the holder of a stage
carriage permit in r.espect of a motor vehicle bearing No. TDL7755 plying on the town service route No.
l.A from Erode
Railway Station to Tiruchengode via P.S. Park, Ex-Clock Tower,
Sathy Road,
Bus
Stand, K.N.K.
Road,
Pallipalayam, S.P.B.
Factory, S.P.B. Colony and Thokkavadl., The existing route
length is 23.7
Kms.
At present the appellant's bus is
performing 12 single trips between Erode Railway Station and
Tiruchengode and 8 single trips between Erode Railway Station
and S.P.B. Factory. The total kilometerage per day comes to
358 Kms. The said permit had been issued by the Regional
Transport Authority of Periyar District, Erode in the State of
_.!, Tamil Nadu. He applied to the Regional Transport Authority of
-the District of Periyar which had issued the permit for its
variation involving :
'I·
i
L,J,
(1) conversion of the town servl.ce into a mofussil
service;
(2) curtailment of the sector from Erode Railway
Station to Erode Bus Stand via P.S. Park and Sathy
Road;
(3) curtailment of 10 single trips between Erode
Bus Stand and S.P.B. Factory;
( 4) curtailment of 2 single trips between S. P. B.
Factory and Tiruchengode; and
(5) extension of route from Tiruchengode to Salem
via Mallasa111.1dram, Attayampatti and Ariyanur.
~ It may
be mentioned here that while Erode Railway
""/ ~tation, P.S. Park and Bus Stand are in Periyar District,
Pallipalayam, S.P.B. Factory, S.P.B. Colony and Tiruchengode
are in Salem District of Tamil Nadu. The existing permit is,
therefore, an inter-regional permit. The entire route between
Tiruchengode and Salem in respect of whlch extension of the
--y permit was sought is also in Salem District. The application
for variation made by the appellant was duly notified under
section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') and
representations/objections
thereto were
invited.
Thereafter the Regional
Transport
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] z s.c.R.
Authority heard the appellant and others who had filed \,_
objections and representations and passed a resolution on June
1, 1984 rejecting the said application. It held inter alia
that the conversion of the town service into a mofussil
service and curtailment of 10 trips between Erode Bus Stand
and S,P.B, Factory and 2 trips between S.P.B. Factory and
Tiruchengode were not in the public interest. It also held
that the entire sector in respect of which the extension was
.k
sought lay within Salem District that the said sector was ·
well-served by stage carriage services and that it was not
proper for it to grant the extension since the entire route
,
between Tiruchengode and Salem lay within the jurisdiction of
the Regional Transport Authority, Salem. On these grounds the~
Regional Transport Authority of the'District of Periyar found
that there was no ground for granting the varia.tion prayed :v
for. Aggrieved by the resolution of the Regional Transport
Authority of th~ District of Periyar, the appellant preferred
an appeal before the State Transport Appellate
Tribun.~l,
Madras
(hereinafter referred to as
'the Tribunal'). The
Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and
granted the variation (including the extension) applied for
with slight modification,
The Tribunal directed that the
j
appellant's bus
should
perform the
following pattern of ,., __
trips :
(1) two single trips from Erode Railway Station to
Salem;
(2) four single trips from Erode Bus Stand to r
Salem; and
(3) four single trips from Erode Railway Station t~
Ti ruchengode.
··
It directed the Secretary of the Regional Transport
Authority, Periyar District at Erode to fix suitable timings
within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of on April 19, 1985, In
its proceedings
dated 4.10, 1985
the Secretary, Regional ,.--·
Transport Authority, Periyar District, Erode fixed the timings
as directed by the Tribunal but since in the meanwhile a stay
order had been issued by the High Court in some civil revision
petitions and a writ petition filed by some of the objectors,
it directed that the timings fixed would be given effect to as
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]
77
--<, and when the order of stay was vacated. The revision petitions
and the writ petition filed by some of the objectors against
the order of the Tribunal which are referred to above were
disposed of by the High Court on December 20, 1985 by allowing
them.
The High Court held that the Regional Transport
Authority, Periyar District at Erode had no jurisdiction to
entertain the application for variation since the entire route
~ in respect of which extension was sought lay within the jurisdiction of the Salem Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, the proceedings co1DIDenced with the said application were
'
liable to be quashed. On the other contentions raised by the
_,petitioners before it, it expressed no opinion and left them
J_ open.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the
appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave before
';{ this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The short question for decision in this case is whether
an application for the variation of an existing permit
involving the extension of the route or the area specified in
the permit, where the portion of the route or area in respect
l
of which extension is sought lies entirely within the
jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority which had not
"' granted the permit, should be made to the Regional Transport
Authority which had granted the permit or to the Regional
•
Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the route or
area in respect of which extension is sought lies. The answer
to this question depends upon the construction of some of the
relevant provisions found in Chapter IV of the Act. Section 42
~ of the Act provides that no owner of a transport vehicle shall
l
use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place,
whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger
or goods, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit
. granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport
Authority or the Inter-State Transport Commission Constituted
under section 63-A of the Act, authorising the use of the
vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is
being used. The expression 'permit' is defined in sub-section
(20) of section 2 of the Act as the document issued by the
r' Colllllission
or
a
State or Regional Transport Authority
authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract
carriage, or stage carriage, or authorising the owner as a
private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle. We are
concerned in this case with a motor vehicle used as a stage
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
'D
E
F
G
H
78
\
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1986) 2 S.C. R.
carriage vehicle. Sub-section (29) of section 2 of the Act
defines a 'stage carriage' as a nx>tor vehicle carrying or
adapted to carry more than- six persons excluding the driver
which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fares
paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole
journey or for stages of the journey. Section 45 of the Act is
the general provision governing the question involved in this
case. The material part of that section reads thus :
(
"45. General provision as to applications for
permits -
(1) Every application for a permit shall
be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the
region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle
or vehicle~;.
Provided 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;
"
..............................................
. Sub-section ( l) of section 45 of the Act provides that
every application for a permit shall ,be made to the Regional
Transport Authority of the region -in which it is proposed to
use the vehicle or vehicles. The first proviso .to sub-section -y
(1) of section 45 of the Act provides 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 o_r
vehicles. In the instant case the appellant had obtained the
permit for plying this stage carriage from the Regional
Transport Authority of Periyar District, since the major
portion of the route in respect of which the said permit had
"""'(
DURAISUAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.)
79
been issued was lying within its jurisdiction. Sub-section (1)
of section 63 of the Act, however, provides that except as may
be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional
Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in
any other. region, unless the permit has been countersigned by
the Regional Transport Authority of that other region.
The relevant portion of section 63 of the Act is set out
below :
"63. Validation of permits for use outside region
in which granted. - (1) Except as may be otherwise
prescribed, · a
permit
granted by
the Regional
Transport Authority of any one region shall not be
valid in any other region, unless the permit has
been
countersigned
by
the
Regional
Transport
Authority of that other region, and •••••••••
(2)
A
Regional
Transport
Authority
when
countersigning the permit may attach to the permit
any condition which it might have imposed if it had
granted the permit, and may likewise vary any
condition attached to the permit by the Authority
by which the.permit was granted.
(3) The provisions of the Chapter relating to the
grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall
apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of
· counte~ignatures of permits ••••• "
''(
Rilles 163-A, 163-B and 208 of the Tamil Na\fu Motor
Vehicles Rilles framed under the Act provide for an alternative
procedure to be followed when ·the motor vehicle is to be
operated in two or more regions inside,the State of Tamil Nadu
as authorised by section 63(1) of the Act. They read thus :
r
"163-A: ( 1) The Regional Transport Authority of any
one region may,
subject to the provisions of
section 45 of the Act, grant a permit to be valid
· in any other region within the State without the
counter-signature
of
the
Regional
Transport
Authority of the other region or of each of the
other regions concerned and it shall as soon as
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
80
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986) 2 S.C.R.
)"
possible, send. copies or proceedings relating to ·
the issue of such permit to the concerned regions :
Provided. that no Regional Transport Authority shall
grant a permit on routes for which the State
Transport Authority as the sole Transport Authority
under rule 141 unless such power is delegated by -'f--
the State Transport Authority under Rule 140-A.
·(2) The Regional Transport: Authority granting a
permit under sub-rule (1) shall, before granting a
permit -
(a) in case of a stage carriage permit obtain the yconcurrence of the Regional Transport Authority
·
concerned, -
. (
(b) notify, under sub-section (3) of section 57 of
the Act, the whole of the route or area which lies
within the State and in respect of which an
application for the grant of a permit has been
received, by publishing it on the notice board of
the Regional Transport Authority of that other
. region and shall hear the applicant or any other
'person making representations.
~·
163-B. The provisions' of rule 163-A shall, as far
as
may
be apply to variation,
extension and
curtailment of routes and to grant and renewal of
endorsement as they.apply to grant of permit.
208. (a) Upon application. made in 'writing by they
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 1
permit by the inclusion of an additional. vehicle or,,....,_
vehicles or if the grant of variation would
authorise transport facilities materially different
f.rom. those authorised.. lzy'· the original permit the
T:r;insport, Authority shall, deal: with, the application
as_ if.' ·it: were. an, apl'licat:Jon, f.or· a, permit.~·
-
..,
DURAISWAMY v, MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [ VENKATARAMIAH, J. ]
81
Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall
A
prevent the Transport Authority or its Secretary,
if authorised in this behalf,
from
summarily
rejecting an application for the variation of a
stage carriage permit so as to provide transport
facilities on a road which has been or is certified
to be unfit for motor vehicular traffic by an
B
officer not below the rank of Divisional Engineer
of the Highways Department."
In the instant
~ase it is not disputed that the major
portion of the route mentioned in the permit of the appellant
-~ -was lying within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport
Authority or Periyar and the smaller portion lay within the
District of Salem. It is also not disputed that if the route
in respect of which extension is sought is
added
then the
major portion of the total route would be within the District
of Salem.
c
An application for a permit in respect of a service of
D
stage c.3rriages or to use a particular motor vehicle as a
stage carriage has to be made in accordance with section 46 of
the Act and the rules made thereunder. The application should
contain the following particulars, namely :
( i) the route or routes or the area or areas to
E
which the application relates ;
(ii) the number of vehicles it is proposed to
operate in relation to each route or area and the
type and seating capacity of each such vehicle;
(iii) the mininum and maxinum number of daily trips
proposed to be provided in relation to each route
or area and the time table of the normal trips ;
F
(iv) the number of vehicles intended to be kept in
reserve to maintain the service and to provide for
G
special occasions ;
( v) the arrangements intended to be made for the
housing and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort
and convenience of passengers and for the storage
and safe custody of luggage; and
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 s.c.R.
(vi) such other matters as may be prescribed by the
rules framed under the Act.
r""'
When an application is made for a permit in respect of a
stage carriage service under section 45 of the Act the
Regional Transport Authority concerned has
to follow
the
procedure prescribed in section 57 of the Act. Sub-section (3)
of section 57 of the Act reads thus :
i
"57(3). On receipt of an application for a stage
carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the
"'"
Regional
Transport
Authority
shall
make
the
'
application available for inspection at the office )...~
of the Authority and shall publish the application
or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner Y
together with a notice of the date before which
representation in connection therewith
may be
submitted and the date, not being less than thirty
days from such publication, on which, and the time
and place at which, the application and any representations r.eceived will be considered."
I'-
Sub-section (4) of section 57 of the Act provides that no
,>..
representation in connection with an application referred to
in sub-section (3) thereof shall be considered by the Regional
Transport Authority unless it is made in writing before the
appointed date and unless a
copy
thereof is furnished
simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such
·
representation. When any representation such as ref erred to in JI
sub-section (3)
thereof is made
the Regional Transport
Authority is required by sub-section (5) thereof to dispose of
the application at a public hearing at which the applicant and
the person making the representation shall have an opportunity
of being heard either in person or by a duly authorised
representative. Section 47 of the Act requires a Regional
Transport Authority to have regard while considering an
application for a stage carriage permit to the following
matters, namely :
(i) the interest of the public generally
(ii) the advantages to the public of the service to
be provided, including the saving of time likely to
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]
83
be effected thereby and any convenience arising
A
from journeys not being broken
(iii) the adequacy of other passenger
transport
services operating or likely to operate in the near
future, whether by road or other means, between the
places to be served ;
B
. --'-
(iv) the benefit to any particular locality or
localities likely to be afforded by the service ;
(v)
the operation
transport services,
which
applications
pending; and
by
the applicant
of
other
including those in respect of
from
him
for
permits
are
(vi) the condition of the roads included in the
proposed_ route or area.
The Regional Transport Authority is also required to take
into consideration any representation made by persons already
providing transport facilities by any mearn• along or near the
proposed route or area, or by any assoclation representing
persons
interested
in
the
provision
of
road
transport
facilities recognised by the State Government or-by any local
--..,.
authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any
part of the proposed route or area lies. Sub-section (3) of
--., section 47 of the Act ·provides that a Regional Transport
Authority, may having regard to the matters mentioned in
""1...\ _section 47(1) limit the number of stage carriages generally or
rof any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be
1 granted in the region or in any specified area or on any
specified route within the region. Section 48 of the Act
provides that subject to the provisions of section 47 of the
Act, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application
made to it under section 46 of the Act, grant a stage carriage
-'lll
permit in accordance with the application or with such
modifications as it deel15 fit or refuse to grant such a
. ..,,
permit. It, however, provides that no such permit shall be
granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the
application.
Sub-section
(3)
of section 48 .of
t~e Act
authorises the Regional Transport Authority, if 1t decides to
grant a stage carriage perlDit, to grant it subject to any or
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 $,C.R.
more of the conditions mentioned in clauses (i) to (xxiii) in;.-.
sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Act, one such condition
being the condition referred to in clause (xxi) of sub-section
(3) of section 48 of the Act which reads thus :
"(xxi) that the Regional Transport Authority may,
after giving notice of not less than one month --
(a) vary the conditions of the permit;
(b) attach to the permit further conditions
Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance)...·
of clause ( i) shall not be varied so as to alter
the distance covered by the original route by ioore Y
than 24 kilometers, and any variation within such
limits shall be made only after the Regional
Transport
Authority
is
satisfied
that
such
variation will serve the public convenience and
that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit
i.n respect of the original route as so varied or
;..
any part thereof."
Clause (xxi) of sect ion 48(3) of the Act refers to the
power of variation which the Regional Transport Authority may
exercise suo motu.
-----
The duration and renewal of a stage carriage permit are
governed by section 58 of the Act. That section provides that -
.,.~
a stage carriage permit (other than a tempotary permit issued
r
under section 62) shall be effective without renewal -for sucn..):c·
period, not less than three years and not more than five/
years, as the Regional Transport Authority may specify in the
permit. As provided in sub-section (2) of section 58 of the
Act a permit may be renewed on an application made and
disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. A
renewal of a permit is in effect the continuation of the
original permit. Section 60 of the Act inter alia provides
..
that the transport authority which granted a permit may cancel ! ..
the permit or·may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit
._
if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle
to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit. The
provisions contained
in section
60
of
the Act apply to
DURAISWAMY v. MURUG~ BUS SERVICE [ VENKATARAMIAH, J. ]
85
--lrevocation and suspension of counter-signatures of permits by
virtue of sub-section (3) of section 63 of the Act.
Since a stage carriage permit is issued for the benefit
of the general public, it is obligatory that the holder of a
stage carriage permit should operate the stage carriage
vehicle in accordance with the conditions of the permit on the
route or area in question. If he wishes any alteration in the
~ route or area for which he has obtained a permit he has to get
his permit varied in accordance with law. Sub-section (8) of
section 57 of the Act (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act No. 3 of
1964) which deals with the procedure to be followed by the
,_(holder of a permit who seeks such variation, reads thus :
"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 the area specified in the permit, or, in
the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing
the number of trips above the specified maxillllm or
by altering the route covered by it or in the case
A
B
c
D
of a contract carriage permit or a public carrier's
permit,
by
increasing the number
of vehicles
covered by the permit, shall be treated as an
application for the grant of a new permit."
E
'"(
(underlining by us)
The controversy involved in this case has arisen primarily on account of the language used in sub-section (8) of
-section 57 of the Act. It may be noted that sub-section
(8) of section 57 of the Act does not expressly prescribe the
Regional Transport Authority to which an application for the
variation of a permit has to be made where the route or area
in respect of '1hich extension is sought lies outside the
jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority which has
granted the ·permit but within the jurisdiction of another
'( Regional Transport Authority. The said sub-section is silent
about it.