# R. D. AGARWALA & ANR. ETC v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 778
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-02-23
- **Case number:** CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2634 of 1969
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, J. C. Shah, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover, A. N. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-d-agarwala-anr-etc-v-union-of-india-anr-4965
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Practice and Pi-ocedure-Single Judge deciding iniportant questions and
suo motu granting certificate 'under Art. 132(1) of the ConstitutionPro_.,,riety.
A
B
Writ petitions involving. important questions of law came up before
C
a single Judge of the High Court.
He was requested by the parties to
refer the cases to a Divisional Bench.
Instead of doing so he disposed
them of himself, and suo n1otu granted a certificate under Art. 132(1) of
1he constitution for appeal to this court.
HELD : The
action of the
Judge though
technically
permissible
wa-; improper, because, either the Judge should have referred the case<;
to a Bench, or alloY.ied the P.arties to pursue their right of appeal to
a
D
Bench against the decision of the single Judge, without short
circuiting
tht right by passing on the cases to this Court. [779 E-G)
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2634
of 1969 and 63 of 1970.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated December 5,
E
1969 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Nos. 220 and 725 of
1968.
C.A. No. 2634 of 1969.
Sarjoo Prasad, Prem Nath Chadda, K. L. Mehta, S. K. Mehta,
K. R. Nagaraja, M. G. Gupta and Sona Bhatiani, for the appelF
!ants.
R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 1.
M. C. Setalvad, Govind Das and B. P. Singh, for intervener
No. 1.
M. C. Chagla, K. K. Jain, Bishamber Lal and H. K. Puri, for
intervener no. 2.
C.A. No. 63 of 1970.
R. V. S. Mani .. for the appellants.
S. P. Nayar, for respQndent No. 1.
S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and Sona Bhatiani
for respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
.
'
G
H
,..
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
R. D. AGARWALA v. UNION (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.)
779
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Hidayalullah, C.J.
This order will govern the disposal of
Civil Appeals Nos. 2634 of 1969 and 63 of 1970. These two
appeals arise out of two writ petitions filed in the High Coun of
Delhi which were disposed of by a common judgment delivered
by a le3rned single Judge on December 5, 1969. The appeals
have been brought on certificate granted suo motu by the learned
single Judge under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution of India.
While granting the certificate, the learned single Judge observed
that at an earlier stage in the case, request was made to him to
refer these two petitions for decision to a Bench, because important questions were involved in them. At that time, the learned
Judge felt that since there was a Division Bench decision of the
Rajasthan High Court· in Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. Union of India
and another(') there was no need to refer the matter to a larger
Bench. The learned Judge goes on to say in the order granting
certificate that at the time of the hearing, he found that several
questions arose before him which were not covered by the Rajasthan decision. He probably felt that as the points which he had
to decide were not considered by this Court in any earlier decision and a• he had decided the case sitting singly, he should grant
certificate .mo motu for appeal to this Court.
In our opinion, and we say it respectfully, the learned Judte
was ~ error in not making a reference to a Bench when he found
that important questions of law were arising before him: Even
if he did not make any reference, he should have allowed the parties to take an appeal in the High Court itself under the provisions
pertaining to appeals against decisions of a single Judge. Tke
practice of deciding the case sitting singly and giving a certificate under Art. 132(1) for appeal to this Court although technically correct, is 111 improp.~r practice. Ii is the right of the party
to file an appeal in the High Court itself against the decision of
the single Judge and that right should not be shOrt-circuited by
passing Ol\ the case io the Supreme Court for decision. We think
we should not endorse this practice which would create a bad
precedent in India. We accordingly cancel the certificate and
leave the parties free to file an appeal in the High Court, it they
so desire. There will be no order as to costs.
V.P.S.

## Text

778
R. D. AGARWALA & ANR. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
February 23, 1970
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE,
A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.]
Practice and Pi-ocedure-Single Judge deciding iniportant questions and
suo motu granting certificate 'under Art. 132(1) of the ConstitutionPro_.,,riety.
A
B
Writ petitions involving. important questions of law came up before
C
a single Judge of the High Court.
He was requested by the parties to
refer the cases to a Divisional Bench.
Instead of doing so he disposed
them of himself, and suo n1otu granted a certificate under Art. 132(1) of
1he constitution for appeal to this court.
HELD : The
action of the
Judge though
technically
permissible
wa-; improper, because, either the Judge should have referred the case<;
to a Bench, or alloY.ied the P.arties to pursue their right of appeal to
a
D
Bench against the decision of the single Judge, without short
circuiting
tht right by passing on the cases to this Court. [779 E-G)
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2634
of 1969 and 63 of 1970.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated December 5,
E
1969 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Nos. 220 and 725 of
1968.
C.A. No. 2634 of 1969.
Sarjoo Prasad, Prem Nath Chadda, K. L. Mehta, S. K. Mehta,
K. R. Nagaraja, M. G. Gupta and Sona Bhatiani, for the appelF
!ants.
R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 1.
M. C. Setalvad, Govind Das and B. P. Singh, for intervener
No. 1.
M. C. Chagla, K. K. Jain, Bishamber Lal and H. K. Puri, for
intervener no. 2.
C.A. No. 63 of 1970.
R. V. S. Mani .. for the appellants.
S. P. Nayar, for respQndent No. 1.
S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and Sona Bhatiani
for respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
.
'
G
H
,..
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
R. D. AGARWALA v. UNION (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.)
779
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Hidayalullah, C.J.
This order will govern the disposal of
Civil Appeals Nos. 2634 of 1969 and 63 of 1970. These two
appeals arise out of two writ petitions filed in the High Coun of
Delhi which were disposed of by a common judgment delivered
by a le3rned single Judge on December 5, 1969. The appeals
have been brought on certificate granted suo motu by the learned
single Judge under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution of India.
While granting the certificate, the learned single Judge observed
that at an earlier stage in the case, request was made to him to
refer these two petitions for decision to a Bench, because important questions were involved in them. At that time, the learned
Judge felt that since there was a Division Bench decision of the
Rajasthan High Court· in Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. Union of India
and another(') there was no need to refer the matter to a larger
Bench. The learned Judge goes on to say in the order granting
certificate that at the time of the hearing, he found that several
questions arose before him which were not covered by the Rajasthan decision. He probably felt that as the points which he had
to decide were not considered by this Court in any earlier decision and a• he had decided the case sitting singly, he should grant
certificate .mo motu for appeal to this Court.
In our opinion, and we say it respectfully, the learned Judte
was ~ error in not making a reference to a Bench when he found
that important questions of law were arising before him: Even
if he did not make any reference, he should have allowed the parties to take an appeal in the High Court itself under the provisions
pertaining to appeals against decisions of a single Judge. Tke
practice of deciding the case sitting singly and giving a certificate under Art. 132(1) for appeal to this Court although technically correct, is 111 improp.~r practice. Ii is the right of the party
to file an appeal in the High Court itself against the decision of
the single Judge and that right should not be shOrt-circuited by
passing Ol\ the case io the Supreme Court for decision. We think
we should not endorse this practice which would create a bad
precedent in India. We accordingly cancel the certificate and
leave the parties free to file an appeal in the High Court, it they
so desire. There will be no order as to costs.
V.P.S.
Certificate Cancelled .
(I) A.1.R. 1969. Raj. 281.
780
T. N. RAGHUNATHA REDDY
v.
MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
February 24, 1970
[S. M. SIKRI, V. BKARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939-'Kolar Scheme' approved and published by Mysore State Government under s. 68-D of Act-'Existing perniit
holder' lVithin meaning of cl. (d) of scheme-Who is Agreement between
Mysore and Andhra Governments for counter-signing each other perniits
for inter-State routes-Such agree1nent whether overrides Chapl:?r IV-A
of Acr.
In 1959 the States of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh entered into a reciprocal arranaement agreeing thereby that certain permits issued by the
Transport Authorities of one State should be counter-signed by those of
the other. Under s. 43(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Government of Mysore issued directions to the State Transport Authority to give
effect to the above arrangement. On April 25, 1968 the Regional Transport Authority Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh issued a permit to the appellant
for the Cilddapah-Bangalore inter-State route under s. 63 of the Act, which
was to be valid up to May 13, 1971. The appellant then applied to the
State Transport Authority in Mysore for counter-signature of his permit.
By then the Government of Mysore had by its order dated 25-1-1968
approved under s. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, a scheme called the
'Kolar scheme'. That scheme provided for exclusive operation by the
Mysore State Transport Undertaking of stage-carriages on the notified
routes.
Under the scheme existing permit holders' could continue
to
operate inter-State routes except that their permits would be ineffective' for
the overlapping portions of the notified routes. On March I, 1968 the
Mysore State Transport Undertaking applied under s. 68F(l) to operate
buses on the notified routes.
In December 1968 the Regional Transport
Authoritv resolved to give effect to the scheme from 1-1-1969. Meanwhile the appellant's application for counter-signature came up before the
Mysore State Transport Authority on July 6, 1968. By that time, however, writ petitions had been filed in the High Court, challenging
the
'Kolar scheme' and the Court had made interim orders staying the operation of the. scheme.
In that situation
the State Transport
Authority,
Mysore granted to the appellant counter-signature on his permit, expressly
subject to the decision of the High Court as to the validity of the scheme.
On. October 7, 1968 the High Court dismissed the said writ petitions and
upheld the validity of the scheme.
Thereupon the State Tran.sport Authority issued a notice to the appellant to surrender the counter-signature
slip and stop running the buses.
The appeJlan.t chaHenged this order in a
\vrit petition under Art. 226 of 'the Constitution. The petition being dismissed he appealed by special leave to this Court. ·rhe appellant contended
inter alia that : (i) the counter-signature
on
the
appeUant's
pcrn1it
could not be canoelled as he was an •existing permit holder' under cl. (d)
of the scheme and for this purpose the crucial date \Vas 1-1-1969 when
the order under s. 68F(2) came into effect; (ii) Inter-State agreement
overrides the provisions of Chapter JV-A of the Act
HELD : (i) Assuming, without deciding, that the date of publication
is not tbi" appropriate date, the date on which the transp0rt undertaking
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
T. N. REDDY v. S.T.A,. (Sikri, J.)
781
applies under s. 68F(l) for a permit must be the date \Vilh rcfer~nce
to which the. expression "existing permit holder" must be interpreted. The
application by the State. Transport Undertaking in. the present cases \Vas
made on March l, 1968. If this was the crucial date, the appellant was
not an "existing permit holder" because he did
not obtain his counter·
signature till July 1968. [785 C-D]
Abdul Gafoor v. State Mysore, [1962] I S.C.R. 909, applied.
Sri SatJanarayana Transports (P) Lui. Guntur v. Andhra
Prades/i
1
State Road Transport Corporation, C.A. No. 347 of 1961 dt. 30·10-1961,
distinguished.
(ii) Even if the crucial date be taken as January 1, 1969 as cont<nded
by the appellant, he must still fail on the ground that he was not a p<rmit
hO!der at all.
His counter-signature must be deemed to have lapsed when
the High Court on Octnber 7, 1968 dismissed the \vrit petitions in which
the 'Kolar scheme' had been stayed. The order of the Regional Transport Authority gr.tnting the counter·signature "subject to the decision of
the High Court of Mysore about the validity of the Nationalisation Scheme
of the Kilar Pocket" in the context of the case meant that if the writs
failed the counter-signature would automatically lapse. [786 A-BJ
The Smarth Transport Co. v. The Regional Transporl Authority, [1961]
1. S.C.R. 631 at 639, referred to.
(iii) An inter-State agreement cannot
over-ride the provisions
of
Chapter IV-A. .The inter-State agreement is not law and to hold that
an inter-State agreement over-rides Chapter IV-A v.·ould he to complete'1y
disregard the provisions of s. 68-B of the Act. Articles 162 and 298 of
the Constitution had no relevance in this ·connection.
Assuming that a
State has pcv.cr to enter into agreement with another State in exercise of
its executive pO\l.'Crs under A.rt. 162 and under Art, 298 it can carry on
trade or business, the fa.::ts did not throw any hight on the question for
decision. [786 H-787 Al
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1564 of
1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
April 15, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition
No. 1112 of 1969.
P. Ram Reddy, P. Parameslt'ara Rao and A. V. V. Nair, for
the appellant.
G
Niren De, Attorney-Genera/, R. Gopalakrishnan and S. P.
H
Nayar, for respondent No. 1.
Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment of the High Court of Mysore dismissing Writ Petition
No. 1112 of 1969 filed by T. N. R•aghunatha Reddy, appellant
before us, against .the Mysore State Transport Authority. The
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R
appellant had prayed ,to the Court to quash the order/endorsement of the respondent, dated March 5/10, 1969.
In order to appreciate the points raised before the High
Court and before us if is necessary to give a few facts.
In 1959
the States of Andhra Pradesh and Mysore appear to have entered
into a reciprocal arrangement regarding inter-State road transport.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. ( 1) of s. 43
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV Of 1939) the
Government of Mysore issued a direction to the State Transport
Authority to take necessary action to give effect to the above
arrangement. On October 8, 1964, the State of Mysore published under cl. (d) s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939hereinafter referred to as the Act-what is called the "Kolar
Scheme". Clause ( d) of the scheme reads as follows :
·~(d) Whether the services are to
be operated by the State Transport
Undertaking to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or
otberNise
The State
TranSport
Undertaking
will operate services on all the routes
to the complete exclusion of other
persons except that :-
{a) that existing permit
holders
on the inter-State routes may
.continue
to
operate
such
inter-State routes, subject
to
the condition that their permit shall be rendered ineffective for the over-lapping portions of the notified routes".
It is the case of the appellant that in March 1967 on a proposal made by the State of Mysore, the States of Andhra Pradesh
and Mysore eniered into an agreement for counter-signing
a
second inter-State permit on the route Cuddapa to Bangalore, and
on April 4, 1967, the
Transport
Commissioner of
Andhra
Pradesh showed willingness to countersign a second permit. On
April 13, 1967 the Transport Commissioner of Mysore State
expressed willingness to countersign the second permit.
It is
further the case of the appellant that although the State of Andhra
Pradesh carried out the agreement and countersigned the second
permit on the Bangalore-Cuddapa route in favour of a Mysore
operator the Mysore State refused to carry out this agreement.
On January 25, 1968, the Kolar Scheme, as approved, was
published in the Gazette under s.68-D ( 3) of the Act. On March
I. 1968. the Mysore undertakill!! applied under s.68F(l)
to
operate buses from January 1, 1968, or a later date.
On April
25, 1968, the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah issued a
permit to the -appellant for Cuddapah-Bangalore route, an inter
State route, under s. 63 of the Act. This permit is valid uptil May
13, 1971. On May 16, 1968. the appellant applied to the State
Transport Authority, Mysore, for counter-sign;iture under s.63 of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
T. N. REDDY V. S.T.A. (Sikri, J.)
783'
the Act, and on May 20, 1968, the Transport Commissioner,
Andhra Pradesh, requested the Transport Commissioner, Myso,re,
to countersign the appellant's permit under the agreement.
In the meantime the Kolar Scheme had been· challenged in
the High Court and the High Court stayed the Kolar Scheme
B
pending the decision of the writs.
c
D
E
F
G
H
The application of the appel!ant, dated May 16, 1968, ior
the grant of counter-signature of the permit came up for consideration before the Mysore State Tr3i11Sport Authority on July
6, 1968. The learned counsel for the appellant urged bef~ it
that "counter-signature may be given with any timin~ found suitable by the Authority for their service which is an express service
and does not stop in all stations as the shuttle services of the (in
the case of) objectors."
He also urged that "counter-signature
may be cQllSidered and granted as there is a stay order ol. the
High Court of Mysore in W.P. No. 1390 of 1968 against the
operation of the Kolar Nationalisation Scheme and that his permit
was granted before the Scheme was approved and that the permit
is issued under reciprocal agreement." The grant of counter-signature was opposed by a number of objectors. The Law Officer
of the Mysore State Undertaking argued that though there was
a stay order against the Kolar Scheme and its implememtation it
did not authorise any Transport Authority to grant any fresh
permits for counter-signature. The Transport Authority observed:
"After considering the elaborate arguments oL the
counsels for the petitioner and objectors and taking all
aspects of the matter and facis as disclosed from the
records and the large number of existing services on
the route or sectors of the route, the S.T.A. resolved to
grant the counter-signature subject to the decision .. of
the High Court of Mysore about the validity of the
Nationalisation Scheme of Kolar Pocket and with the
fol!owing modification to the timings already granted
by the R.T.A. Cuddapah."
In pursuance of this resolution actual counter-signature was
granted on July 6, 1968. On October 7, 1968, the High Court
dismissed the writs relating io the Kolar Scheme and the Regional
Transport Authority its meeting on December 30, 1968, passed
a series of orders which it deemed fit consequent on the implementation of the Kolar Scheme. On March 10, 1969, the State
Transport AuthoritY, Mysore, issued a notice to the appel!ant to
s•rrender the counter-signature slip and stop running the buses.
On March 15, 1969, the appellant filed writ petition No. 1112
of 1969 challenging this order.
784
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
Before the High Court two points were raised on behalf of
the appellant; ( 1) That the State Transport Authority should
have heard the appellant before calling upon him to surrender
the counter-signature and the Secretary of the State Transport
Authority had no power to issue the impugned endorsement; (2)
As the permit had been granted to the petitioner in pursuance of
an inter-State agreement, the State Transport Authority in Mysore
had rightly granted the counter-signature and the counter-signature could not be revoked later.
The first point is not raised before us. Regarding the second
point the High Court held that "a scheme under Chapter IV-A
(of the Act) will override any agreement including an inter-State
agreement.
Unless such scheme itself exempts permits granted
in pursuance of inter-State agreements such permits will also be
5Ubject to the scheme." The High Court further held that "as
the Kolar Scheme does not exempt permits granted in pursuance
-0f inter-State agreements, the petitioner cannot claim countersignature of his permit when the operation of his stage carriage
in this State is inconsistent with the scheme."
Before us the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.
Ram
Reddy, has raised Kour points :
( 1)
As the appellant is an
existing permit holder within clause ( d) of the Scheme,
the
counter-signature cannot be revoked;
(2) Assuming that the
appellant does not come under clause (d); the counter-signature
should not be revoked. it could only be modified with the condition that the appellant should not pick up or drop passengers on
the overlapping portion of the route; (3) that inter-State agreements override the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Act, and
( 4) that the scheme imposing total exclusion of private carriers
offends the provisiO!n's of Art. 301 of the Constitution. ·
Regarding the first point, the learned c0unsel urges that the
expression "existing permit.holder" in clause (d) of the Scheme
has to be interpreted as if ihe scheme is read on January 1, 1969
when orders under s. 68F(2) of the Act came into effect. He
refers to the fdllowing passage in the otder of the Regional
Transport Authority, dated Dece1!1ber 30, 1968 :
"Further we have resolved to give effect to the
Approved Scheme of Kolar Scheme with effect from
1-1-1969
in accordance with Section 68F(2)
and
resolved to take the ;following action under Section
68F(2) of the M.V. Act 1939 (as appended hereto)."
It seems to us that this is not a correct way of interpreting
the Scheme. · The scheme as approved, was published in the
Government Gazette under s. 68D(3) on January 25, 1968, and
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
11
c
D
T. N. REDDY V, S.T.A. (Sikri, J.)
785
on March 1, 1968, the Mysore undertaking applied under s. 68
F ( 1) to operate buses from January 1968 or a later date. As
held by this Court in Abdul Gafoor v.
State of Mysore(')
"when a scheme prepared and published under s. 68-C has
been approved and an application has been made in pursuance
of the scheme and in the proper manner as specified in Ch. IV
nothing more remains to be decided by the Regional Transport
Authority and it has no option to refuse the grant of the permit"
and "when taking action under s. 68-F ( 1) the Regional Transport Authority does not exercise any quasi-judicial function and
acts wholly in a ministerial capacity." It seems to us that even
if the date of publication may not be the appropriate date-we
do not decide that it is not an appropriate date-atleast the date
on which th.~ transport undertaking applies under s. 68F(l) for
a pennit must be the date with reference to which the expression
"existing permit holder" must be interpreted. If thi:i
is
the
crucial date, then ii is quite clear that the appellant was not an
existing permit holder because he did not obtain his countersignature till July 1968.
The observations of Raghubar Dayal, J. in Sri Satyanarayana
Transports (P) Ltd. Guntur v. Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporations(') do not assist the appellant.
In that
case the Court was dealing with the objection that it was the duty
E
of the Road Transport Corporation to furnish the date of implementation of each scheme as a part of the proposal, the date being
a material particular. In this connec!ion the Court observed :
F
G
H
"The question whether the State Government can
fix a date or not is not for determination in this appeal
and we do not express any opinion on that point.
Suffice it to say that the Regional Transport Authority
has the power to fix a date after the scheme has been
approved by the State Government, as it is that authority which has, under s.68F, to issue a permit to the
State Transport Undertaking for plying motor vehicles
and to cancel existing permits. The date up to which
th.e existing permits are to continue and the date for
the State Transport Undertaking to commence plying
motor vehicles should be such that there be a continuity
of transport services on the notified route and that there
be no dislocation of transport arrangements."
The Court was not considering the crucial date for the purpose ·
of interpreting the expression "existing permit holder" in a scheme.
(I) [1962] I S.C.R. 909.
(2) Civil Appeal No. 347of1961 ;judgment on October 3, 1961.
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
Apart from that the appellant must fail on the ground that
he was not a permit holder at all even if the crucial date
be
January 1, 1969.
His counter-signature must be deemed to have
lapsed when the High Court dismissed the writ petitions in which
the Kolar scheme had been stayed on October 7, 1968. In our
opinion the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting
the counter-signature "subject to the decision of the High Court
of Mysore about the- validity of the Nationalisation Scheme of
Kolar Pocket," in the context which we have reproduced above,
me'ims that if the writs· failed the counter-signature would automatically lapse.
It will be recalled that this Court held in The
Samrath Transport Co. v. The Regional Transport Authority(')
that the Regional Transport Authority is within its rights not to
entertain an application if the Scheme had been approved and
published.
This Court observed :
"The Regional Transport Authority is authorized
for the purpose of giving effect to an approved scheme
to refuse to entertain an application for renewal of any
other permit.
This power does not depend upon the
presentation of an application by the State Transport
Undertaking for a permit.- This power is exercisable
when it is brought to the notice of the Authority that
there is an approved scheme and, to give effect to it,
the application for renewal cannot be entertained."
The Regional Transport Authority must have been aware of
this and it must be because of the stay order that the counter-signature was granted to the appellant by it.
·
In view of our decision that the appellant's counter-signature
lapsed when the writ petitions were dismissed, the second point
does noi arise.
Regarding the third point, we were unable to appreciate how·
an inter-State agreement overrides
the provisions of Chapter
IV-A. The inter-State agreement is not law and to hold that an
inter-State agreement overrides Chapter IV-A would be to completely disregard the provisions of s. 68 B of the Act which provides
1hat "the provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders
made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or in
any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument
having effect by virtue of any such law." In this connection
reference was made to Art; 162 and Art. 298 of the Constitution.
But we were unable to appreciate what relevance these articles
(I) [1961) 1 S.C.R. 631 at 639.
B
c
D
..
E
F
G
H
A
B
T. N. REDDY V, S.T.'A. (Sikri, J.)
787
have to the point at issue. Assuming that a State has power to
enter into agreement with another State in exercise of its ·executive powers under Art. 162, and under Art. 298 it can carry on
trade or business, we are unable to see what light these facts throw
on the question before us.
We stopped the learned counsel from developing the fourth
point because this point was not taken up in the High Court.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs in this Court.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.