# I' PUNJAB SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE, MOUDHAPARA v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAIPUR AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1966] 2 S.C.R. 221
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-10-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1965
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/i-punjab-sikh-regular-motor-service-moudhapara-v-the-regional-transport-3530
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

-
I ...
)
\
'
•
B
c
D
E
I'
PUNJAB SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE,
MOUDHAPARA .
v.
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
RAIPUR AND ANOTHER
October 15, 1965
[P.
B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR,
C.J.,
K.
N.
WANCHOO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), s. 63 and Central Provi11ces and
Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, rr. 62 and 63-Scope of.
The Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, granted the appellant
renewal of the stage carriage permit for an inter-regional route.
The
appellant, thereafter, applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur,
for renewal of the grant of counter-signature on the renewed permit, and
it was granted. In an application under Art. 226 by the 2nd respondent,
the High Court quashed the order of the Regional Transport Authority,
Raipur, on the ground that the appellant's application for renewel of the
counter-signature was barred by time.
ln appeal to this Court,
HELD : On a proper construction of the Central
Provinces and
Berar Motor Vehicles Rules made by the State Government in regard to
the grant of permits and counter-signatures of inter-regional permits, the
Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, was not competent to renew the
counter-signature on the permit for the inter-regional route granted by the
Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, and the permit was valid only
so far as it related to the .route within the limits of Bilaspur region,
[225 HJ
Even though by s. 63 of .the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the power to
•counter-sign the permit is entrusted to the Regional Transport Authority
of the region in which the remaining part of the route is situate, th•
effect of r. 63 is that the power to counter-sign the permit is vested in
the Authority which grants the renewal of the permit.
In the context and
the language of the rule the word "may" in the rule, though permissive
in form,
is obligatory.
If the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur,
had power to renew the counter-signature on the permit under the rule,
it must be held that the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, had no
such power under r. 62, because, the latter rule
fs
expressly
made
subject to the provisions of r. 63, and the power granted to the Regional
Transport Authority under r. 62 is taken away by the provisions of
r. 63. [227 C-G]
Ml s. Bundelkhand Motors Transport Company v. Beharilal, [1966] l
S.C.R. 485, referred to.

## Text

-
I ...
)
\
'
•
B
c
D
E
I'
PUNJAB SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE,
MOUDHAPARA .
v.
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
RAIPUR AND ANOTHER
October 15, 1965
[P.
B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR,
C.J.,
K.
N.
WANCHOO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), s. 63 and Central Provi11ces and
Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, rr. 62 and 63-Scope of.
The Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, granted the appellant
renewal of the stage carriage permit for an inter-regional route.
The
appellant, thereafter, applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur,
for renewal of the grant of counter-signature on the renewed permit, and
it was granted. In an application under Art. 226 by the 2nd respondent,
the High Court quashed the order of the Regional Transport Authority,
Raipur, on the ground that the appellant's application for renewel of the
counter-signature was barred by time.
ln appeal to this Court,
HELD : On a proper construction of the Central
Provinces and
Berar Motor Vehicles Rules made by the State Government in regard to
the grant of permits and counter-signatures of inter-regional permits, the
Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, was not competent to renew the
counter-signature on the permit for the inter-regional route granted by the
Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, and the permit was valid only
so far as it related to the .route within the limits of Bilaspur region,
[225 HJ
Even though by s. 63 of .the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the power to
•counter-sign the permit is entrusted to the Regional Transport Authority
of the region in which the remaining part of the route is situate, th•
effect of r. 63 is that the power to counter-sign the permit is vested in
the Authority which grants the renewal of the permit.
In the context and
the language of the rule the word "may" in the rule, though permissive
in form,
is obligatory.
If the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur,
had power to renew the counter-signature on the permit under the rule,
it must be held that the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, had no
such power under r. 62, because, the latter rule
fs
expressly
made
subject to the provisions of r. 63, and the power granted to the Regional
Transport Authority under r. 62 is taken away by the provisions of
r. 63. [227 C-G]
Ml s. Bundelkhand Motors Transport Company v. Beharilal, [1966] l
S.C.R. 485, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 152 of
1965.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 13,
H
1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No.
373 of 1964.
M. S. Gupta, for the appellant.
222
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
[1966] 2 s.c.R
B. R. L. Iyengar, for the respondents.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J.
On August 7, 1963 the Regional Transport
Authority, Bilaspur granted to the Punjab Sikh Regular Motor
Service, (hereinafter called the appellant), renewal of a stage
carriage permit for an inter-regional route-Saraipalli to SaranB
garh-in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The permit was valid
upto August 5, 1963 and by the order of renewal dated August
7, 1963 the permit was renewed for a period of three years.
On September 13, 1963 the appellant applied to the Regional
Transport Authority, Raipur for renewal of the grant of countersignature on the renewed pem1it.
Respondent no. 2 objected
to the renewal of the grant of counter-signature on the ground
that the application of the appellant dated September 13, 1963
c
was barred by time.
The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur
held that the application for. renewal of the grant of countersignature was not made within the time prescribed by rule 62
D
of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules but
it took the view that the application for renewal had been filed
within six weeks of the date of the passing of the order of renewal
of the pennit by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur and
therefore the application for the renewal of the grant of countersignature could not be rejected on the ground that it was time
E
barred.
The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur accordingly
granted the renewal of the counter-signature on the permit by
its order dated February 24, 1964. Respondent no. 2 thereafter
applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of
the Constitution of India for ·a writ quashing the order dated
February 24, 1964 passed by the Regional Transport Authority,
Raipur.
The High Court took the view that an application for
renewal of the grant of counter-signature must be made within
the period prescribed by s. 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act
and the appellant having failed to apply within that period, the
application of the appellant for renewal of the counter-signature
F
on the permit was barred and the Regional Transport Authority,
G
Raipur had no jurisdiction to countersign the permit renewed
by the Regional Transport Authority, Bi!aspur. The High Court
accordingly quashed the order dated February 24, 1964 passed
by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur.
This appeal is
brought by the appellant with a certificate granted by. the High
Court nnder Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution.
It is advisable at this stage to refer to the material provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939) which have a bearing
H
"
f
!I
·,.J
'
I
,,,
'!7""
.
•
I
t
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. s. K. MOTOR SERVICE v. R.T.A. (Ramaswami, J.)
223
on the validity of the order of the Regional Transport Authority,
Raipur dated February 24, 1964.
Section 45 of the Motor
Vehicles 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.
By the
proviso to s. 45 it is enacted that where 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.
Section 47 sets out the procedure
of the Regional Transport Authority in considering applications
for stage carriage permits and prescribes the matters which may
be taken into account by that officer in granting or rejecting the
applications for stage carriage permits.
Section
48 provides
that subject to the provision of s. 47,
a Regional Transport
Authority may, on an application made to it, grant a stage carriage permit, in accordance with the application or with such
modifications as it deems fit, valid for a specified route or routes
or a specified area.
Section 57 prescribes
the procedure in
"applying for and granting permits". It is provided by sub-s.
(2) of s. 57 that an application for a stage carriage permit or
a public carrier's permit shall be made not less than six weeks
before the date on which it is desired that the pem1it shall take
effect, or, if the Regional Transport Authority appoints a date
for the receipt of such applications, on such date. Section 58 (1)
provides that a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage
permit other than a temporary permit shall be effective without
renewal for such period not less than three years and more than
five years, as the Regional Transport Authority may specify in
the permit.
Sub-section (2) enacts that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an
application for a permit, provided that the application for the
rene.wal of a permit shall be made (a) in the case of a stage
carnage permit or a public carrier's permit, not less than sixty
days before the date of its expiry, and (b) in any other case,
not less than thirty days before the date of its expiry.
By sub-s.
( 3) the ;\uthority is, notwithstanding anything contained in the
first proviso to sub-s. (2), authorised to entertain an application
for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in the
said proviso, if the application is made not more
than fifteen
days .after the said last date.
Section 63 deals with inter-redonal
and mter-state permits.
The material parts of that section~ are:
"~ 1 ) Except as may be otherwise prescribed,
a
permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
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 a permit granted in any one State shall not be
valid in any other State unless countersigned by the
State Transport Authority of that other State or by the
Regional Transport Authority concerned :
Provided ......................... .
(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 this Chapter relating to the
grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply
to the grant, revocation and suspension
of countersignatures of permits :
Provided .......................... "
Section 68 ( 1) confers authority upon the State Government to
make rules for the purpose of carying into effect the provisions
of Ch. IV of the Act.
A stage carriage permit granted by a Regional Transport
Authority therefore remains effective without renewal for a period
A
B
c
D
E
of not less than three years and not more than five years as the
authority may specify in the permit. A person desiring to obtain
renewal of the permit must, in the case of
a stage carriage
permit, make an application not Jess than sixty days -before the
F
date of its expiry, and the Authority has to deal with the application for the renewal as if it were an application for a permit.
The procedure for obtaining renewal is assimilated to the procedure prescribed for an application for a first permit, but in
order that there is no interruption in the transport service the
Legislature has provided that the application for renewal shall
G
be made not less than sixty days before the date of its expirv, it
being assumed that the authority would be able, in the interval.
to publish the application, and to hear objections to the grant
of renewal.
Except as may be otherwise prescribed, an interregional permit by a Regional Transport Authority in any r,~gion.
is not valid unless the permit is countersigned by the Regional
Transport Authority of that other region. The provisions of Ch.
TV relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits
H
\
\.,
..,
I
•
'
J .,
t
,
'
P. s. R. MOTOR SERVICE v. R.T.A. (Ramaswami, J.)
225
._._ . ~-_. .. ,_:_
A apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits.
The High Court has held, in the present case, that an application for renewal of counter-signature has also to be made not
less than sixty days before the date of its expiry and if no such
B application is made, the Regional Transport Authority has no
power to countersign the permit, and upon that ground the High
Court has quashed the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated February 24, 1964 granting countersignature
of the permit. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the
period of limitation prescribed by s. 58 of the Motor Vehicles
C Act cannot be applied to an application for countersignature of
a renewed permit. It was submitted that the question of countersignature cannot arise unless and until the pennit was first renewed
and therefore it was erroneous to say that an application for
countersignature should be made even before the permit was renewed and within the time prescribed by s. 58.
The contrary
D
view was put forward on behalf of respondent no. 2.
It was
contended that in the case of an inter-regional route, the countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority concerned was
essential for the validity and confinnation of the grant made by
the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction to grant a
permit for the inter-regional route. It was pointed out that under
E
s. 63 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act the provisions of Ch. IV
relating to grant, revocation and suspension of pennits apply to
the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits and therefore the provisions of ss. 57 and 58 about the making of an application for the grant of a permit, the time within
F
which it must be made and the procedure that must be followed,
apply equally in the matter of the grant of countersignatures and
that as s. 58 laid down that an application for renewal of a permit
must be made, in the case of a stage carriage pennit, not less than
sixty days before the date of its expiry, it necessarily followed
that an application for countersignature of the renewed permit
G for inter-regional route had to be made to the Regional Transport
Authority concerned within sixty days before the date of the expiry of the permit.
We do not think it is necessary to express any opinion on
the contentions advanced by the parties on this aspect of the
H
case, for we are of the view that on a proper construction of the
rules made by the State Government in regard to the grant of
permits and countersignatures of inter-regional permits the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur was not competent to renew
22G
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
[I %6] 2 S.C.R.
the countersignature on the pennit for the inter-regional route
granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur in the
present case.
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Central
J;'rovinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 were made by
the appropriate authority and it is the admitted position that
these rules were at the material time in operation in the two
regions-Bilaspur and Raipur in the State of Madhya Pradesh
with which we are concerned.
By r. 61 it is provided :
"(a) Application for the renewal of a permit shall
be made, in writing to the Regional Transport Authority by which the pem1it was issued not Jess than two
months, in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, and not Jess than one
month in
other cases, before the expiry of the permit, and shall
be accompanied by Part A of the permit.
The application shall state the period for which the renewal is
desired and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed
in rule 55.
(b) The Regional Transport Authority renewing a
pennit shall call upon the holder to produce part B or
Parts A, B thereof, as the case may be, and shall endorse Parts A and B accordingly and shall return them
to the holder."
By r. 62 cl. (a) it is provided :
"Subject to the provisions of r. 63, application for
the renewal of a countersignature on a permit shall be
made to the Regional Transport Authority concerned
A
B
c
D
E
and within the appropriate periods prescribed by Rule
F
61 and shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (b),
be accompanied by Part A of the pennit.
The application shall set forth the period for which the renewal
of the counter-signature is required".
By r. 63 cl. (a) it is provided :
"The authority by which a permit is renewed may,
unless any authority by which the pennit has been cotmtersigned (with effect not terminating before the date of
expiry of the permit) has by general or special order
otherwise directed, likewise renew any countersignature
of the permit (by endorsement of the permit in the
manner set forth in the appropriate fonn) and shall, in
such case. intimate the renewal to such authority",
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
P. s. R. MOTOR SERVICE v. R.T.A. (Ramas1rnmi, 1.)
227
Ruic 61 substantially incorporates the provisions of sub-s. (2) of
s. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the proviso thereto, and
makes certain incidental provisions. Clause (a) of r. 62 provides
that the application for renewal of countersignature of a permit
shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority concerned and
within the appropriate period prescribed by r. 61 but the provisions of r. 62(a) are subject to the provisions of r. 63(a) which
confers power upon the Authority which grants renewal of interregional permit under the first proviso
to s. 45 to
countersign
the permit so as to make it valid for the other region covered
by the route.
Therefore, even though by s. 6:1 the power to
countersign the permit is entrusted to the Regional Transport
Authority of the region in which the remaining part of the route
is situate, the effect of r. 63 is that the powc:r to counter.;ign
the pennit is vested in the Authority which grants the renewal
of the permit.
The Legislature has by providing in the opening
part of sub-s. ( l) of s. 63 "except as may be otherwise prescribed'' made the provision subject tu the rules framed by the
State Government under s. 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
provisions of r. 63, therefore, must supersede the direction contained \n s. 63 ( l) of the statute and the Regional Transport
Authority, Bilaspur was competent in the present case lo grant
countersignature of the permit even in so far as it related to the
Raipur region.
On behalf of the appellant attention was drawn
to the expression "may" in r. 63.
But in the context and the
language of the rule the word "may" though permissive in form,
must be held to be obligatory.
Under r. 63 the power to grant
renewal of the countersignature on the permit in the present case
is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. The
exercise of such power of renewal depends not upon the discretion of the authority but upon the proof of the particular case
out of which such power arises.
"Enabling words are construed
as compulsory whenever the object of the power is to effectuate a
legal right" (See Julius v. Bishop of Oxford) ( 1). If the Regional
Transport Authority, Bilaspur had power to renew the counterG
signature on the permit under r. 63, it must be held that the
Regional Transport Authority, Raipur had no such power under
r. 62 because the latter
rule is expressly made subject to the
provisions of rule 63, and the power granted to the Regional
Transport Authority under s. 62 is taken away by the provisions
of r. 63. It follows, therefore, that the Regional Transport AuthoH
rity, Raipur was not competent to renew the countersignature on
the permit in the present case and the Regional Transport Autho-
(1) 5 A.C. 214, 244.
228
SUPREME
COURT
REPOtns
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
rity, Bilaspur was alone competent to renew the countersignature
of the permit. We accordingly hold that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated February 24, 1964
granting countersignature of the pennit was illegal and ultra vires
and was rightly quashed by the High Court by its order dated
November 13, 1964.
We, therefore, confirm the order of the High Court, but for
different reasons. We, however, desire to make it clear that our
order does not affect the validity of the permit granted to the
appellant by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur in so
far as it relates to the route within the limits of Bilaspur region.
That is the ratio of the decision of this Court in M/s. Bundelkhand
Motor Transport Company, Nowgaon v. Behari Lal Chaurasia
and anr. ( 1) in which it was pointed out that inter-regional permit
when granted is valid for the region over which the authority
granting the permit has jurisdiction even though it is not countersigned by the proper Regional Transport Authority with regard
to the portion of the route outside that region.
We accordingly dismiss this appeal. There will be nb order
as to costs. We desire to express our thanks to Mr. Iyengar who
acted as amicus curiae in this case.
Appeal dismissed.
(I) [1966] t S.C.R. 485.
B
\
c
D