# RAM VILAS LTD v. RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. (Sikri, J,)

- **Citation:** [1968] 2 S.C.R. 14
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-10-20
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPEi.LATE JuR1so1cr10N : Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1967
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-vilas-ltd-v-raman-raman-ltd-sikri-j-4301
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

SRI RAM VILAS SERVICE I.TD., KUMBAKO:'llAM
RAMAN & RAMAN PRIVATE LTD., & ANR.
October 20, 1967
!J. c. SHAH. S. M. SIKRI AND J. M. SllELAT, JJ.]
~\fotor Vcl1i£-les Act (4 of 1939). s. 4S(3) a11d r. 208-Variation £l/
Route-Jurisdiction of Regional J'ranspvrt A11rhori1y-·-!i.Jadras Act (1 of
1964), s. 5(1).
The appellant\. application for \·ariatio!l of 11 roult: extending beyond
24 kilometers was acccp1cd by the Regional Transport Authority.
The
responden~ who had unsucce;sfully objected before the Authority, filed
a writ petition in the High Court to quash the order.
The High Court
accepted the \l.·rit petition holding that ;uty V1triation in excess of 24 kilometers \\o·as ex fcrcie illegal and violation Qf the intcn<ln1cnt of the lcgis.t1turc enacting ~adras Act 3 of· 1964, v.·hich amended the ~lotor \'chicles
Act.
In appeal, this Court,
HELD: 'fhe Regional Transport Au1hority
h;id authoril)' under r.
208 to vary 1he permit-and nnthing contained in s. 48(3)(xxi) of
the
l\1otor Vehicle .... Act Jimitcd its po'·vcr in re~pect or ·the dislancc coverc<l
by the variation in this case.
[19A]
Section 5(1) of Madras Ac! 3 of 196-1 made the route or routes or
the area specified in every slagc carriage pc·rmit granlcd before the commcnc.ement of the Amending Act a con<lition
attached
to such pcrn1it
under sub-s. (3) of s. 4R ()t the Principi!l
Ac1~ it
did not ~~•Y that ~.
48(3)(x.xi) sh;dl he dccn1cd lo be a conditi0n
attacht.-<l to cvcrv
such
permit.
[ l 8CJ
•
The High Court erred in holding that s. 48(3 )(x-.i) of the Act.
as
amended, by itsclf gave poVr·cr to the Regional Transport
Authori1y tn
vary the rout~ within cc1 fain Jinlits.
·1 hi...
JlO\vcr could
he cxcrciscJ
only if a condition to that effect was put in 1hc permit. fn the case of the
appellant the permit contained a condition ~in1il:ir to the condilion mentioned in s. 48(3)(xxiJ before it< amendment by Act 3 of 1964. Thcrcfor·o, for the purpose of this appeal s. 48(3) (xxi). as amended ho; to be
treated as non-existent.
118&(;]
CIVIL APPEi.LATE JuR1so1cr10N :
Civil Appeal No. 258 of
1967.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 3, 1966
A
c
D
E
F
of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1966.
G
G. Ramaswamy, R. Gopalakrislmm1 and K. K. Ven11gopa/, for
the appellant.
M. N. Rangachari, M. K. Ramam11rt'1i. S/lyamal!' Pappu and
Vi11eet Kumar, for respondent No. I.
The Judgm\:nt of the Court was delivered by
ff
Sikri, J.
This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court
of Madras is directed against its order dated October 3, 1966,
-.
A
B
..
c
D
F
G
H
•
RAM VILAS LTD. V. RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. (Sikri, J,)
15
allowing the writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by M/s Raman & Raman (P) Ltd., Kumbal::onam, and
quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, dated March 28, 1966, whereby the Regional Transport
Authority had granted the application for variation of the route
Sirkali to Kumbakonam of M/s Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. Kum"
bal::onam, in respect af two stage c:rrriages.
On December 9, 1965, the application of M/s Sri Ram Vilas
Service Ltd., Kumbakonam for variation of the route Sirkali to
Kumbakonam was notified under s. 57 ( 3) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939. M/s Raman & Raman (P) Ltd., among others, filed
objections and after hearing the objections, by order dated March
28, 1966, the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, granted
the application as, according to it, the variation applied for was
in the interest of the travelling public. The distance covered by
the variation extended beyond 24 kilometers. M/s Raman &
Raman (P) Ltd. filed the petition under Art 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
The question which arises in this appeal is whether the
Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to vary the route
by extending it beyond 24 kms.
The High Court, following its
earlier decision in M/ s Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. v. M/ s
Murugan Transports, Tiruchirapalli

## Text

SRI RAM VILAS SERVICE I.TD., KUMBAKO:'llAM
RAMAN & RAMAN PRIVATE LTD., & ANR.
October 20, 1967
!J. c. SHAH. S. M. SIKRI AND J. M. SllELAT, JJ.]
~\fotor Vcl1i£-les Act (4 of 1939). s. 4S(3) a11d r. 208-Variation £l/
Route-Jurisdiction of Regional J'ranspvrt A11rhori1y-·-!i.Jadras Act (1 of
1964), s. 5(1).
The appellant\. application for \·ariatio!l of 11 roult: extending beyond
24 kilometers was acccp1cd by the Regional Transport Authority.
The
responden~ who had unsucce;sfully objected before the Authority, filed
a writ petition in the High Court to quash the order.
The High Court
accepted the \l.·rit petition holding that ;uty V1triation in excess of 24 kilometers \\o·as ex fcrcie illegal and violation Qf the intcn<ln1cnt of the lcgis.t1turc enacting ~adras Act 3 of· 1964, v.·hich amended the ~lotor \'chicles
Act.
In appeal, this Court,
HELD: 'fhe Regional Transport Au1hority
h;id authoril)' under r.
208 to vary 1he permit-and nnthing contained in s. 48(3)(xxi) of
the
l\1otor Vehicle .... Act Jimitcd its po'·vcr in re~pect or ·the dislancc coverc<l
by the variation in this case.
[19A]
Section 5(1) of Madras Ac! 3 of 196-1 made the route or routes or
the area specified in every slagc carriage pc·rmit granlcd before the commcnc.ement of the Amending Act a con<lition
attached
to such pcrn1it
under sub-s. (3) of s. 4R ()t the Principi!l
Ac1~ it
did not ~~•Y that ~.
48(3)(x.xi) sh;dl he dccn1cd lo be a conditi0n
attacht.-<l to cvcrv
such
permit.
[ l 8CJ
•
The High Court erred in holding that s. 48(3 )(x-.i) of the Act.
as
amended, by itsclf gave poVr·cr to the Regional Transport
Authori1y tn
vary the rout~ within cc1 fain Jinlits.
·1 hi...
JlO\vcr could
he cxcrciscJ
only if a condition to that effect was put in 1hc permit. fn the case of the
appellant the permit contained a condition ~in1il:ir to the condilion mentioned in s. 48(3)(xxiJ before it< amendment by Act 3 of 1964. Thcrcfor·o, for the purpose of this appeal s. 48(3) (xxi). as amended ho; to be
treated as non-existent.
118&(;]
CIVIL APPEi.LATE JuR1so1cr10N :
Civil Appeal No. 258 of
1967.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 3, 1966
A
c
D
E
F
of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1966.
G
G. Ramaswamy, R. Gopalakrislmm1 and K. K. Ven11gopa/, for
the appellant.
M. N. Rangachari, M. K. Ramam11rt'1i. S/lyamal!' Pappu and
Vi11eet Kumar, for respondent No. I.
The Judgm\:nt of the Court was delivered by
ff
Sikri, J.
This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court
of Madras is directed against its order dated October 3, 1966,
-.
A
B
..
c
D
F
G
H
•
RAM VILAS LTD. V. RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. (Sikri, J,)
15
allowing the writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by M/s Raman & Raman (P) Ltd., Kumbal::onam, and
quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, dated March 28, 1966, whereby the Regional Transport
Authority had granted the application for variation of the route
Sirkali to Kumbakonam of M/s Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. Kum"
bal::onam, in respect af two stage c:rrriages.
On December 9, 1965, the application of M/s Sri Ram Vilas
Service Ltd., Kumbakonam for variation of the route Sirkali to
Kumbakonam was notified under s. 57 ( 3) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939. M/s Raman & Raman (P) Ltd., among others, filed
objections and after hearing the objections, by order dated March
28, 1966, the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, granted
the application as, according to it, the variation applied for was
in the interest of the travelling public. The distance covered by
the variation extended beyond 24 kilometers. M/s Raman &
Raman (P) Ltd. filed the petition under Art 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
The question which arises in this appeal is whether the
Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to vary the route
by extending it beyond 24 kms.
The High Court, following its
earlier decision in M/ s Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. v. M/ s
Murugan Transports, Tiruchirapalli and Others(') held that "any
variation in excess of 24 kilometers would be ex facie illegal ·and
violation of the intendment of the Legislature enacting Act 3 of
1964."
The answer to the question posed above depends upon the true
construction of some sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,
as amended by the Madras Act ill of 1964. The relevant statutory provisions are as follows :
"48 ( 1). Subject to the provisions of section 4 7, a
Regional Transport Authority may on an application
made to it under section 46, grant a stage carriage permit
in accordance with the application or with such modification as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit;
Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area oo.t specified in the application.
(3) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides
to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit
for service of stage carriages of a specified description
or for one or more particular stage carriages, and may,
subject to any rules that may be made under this Act,
(I) \Yrit Petition No. 3744of1965, judgement dated Srptember 7, 1966.
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968] 2 S.C.R.
attach to the permit any one or more of the following
conditions, namely :
( i) that the stage carriage or stage carriages shall
be used only on a specified route or routes or in a specified area.
(xxi) that the Regional Transport Authority, may
after giving notice of not less than one month :
(a) vary, extend or curtail the route or routes or
the area specified in the permit.
Provided that in the case of-
( i) variation, the termini shall not be altered and
the distance covered by variation shall not exceed 24
kms.
(ii) extension of the distance covered by the extension shall not exceed ·24 kms. from the termini
(aa) vary any other condition of the .permit."
"S. 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 routes
or area specified in the permit or in the case of a stage
carriage permit, by increasing the number of services
above the specified maximum. or in the case of a contract carriage permit by increasing the number of vehicles
covered by the permit shall be treated as an application
for the grant of a new permit."
"Ruic 208. (a) Upon application made in writing
by the 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
permit by the inclusion of an additional vehicle or vehicles or if the grant of variation would authorize transport
facilities materially different from those authorized by
the original permit the Transport Authority shall deal
with the application as if it were an application for a
permit.
Provided that nothing contained in this rule
shall pre·1cnt the Transport Authority or its Secretary, if
authorized in this behalf. from summarily rejecting an
application for the variation of a stage carriage permit
A
..
B
c
D
E
F
H
•
RAM VILAS LTD. v. RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. (Sikri, J.)
17
..
A
so as to provide transport facilities on a road which has
been or is certified to be unfit for motor vehicular traffic
by an officer not below the rank of Divisional Engineer
of the Highways Department.
( c) Every application for variation of conditions of
8
permit under sub-section ( 8) of section 57 of the Act in
respect of a transport vehicle shall be in form PV A.
(d) The provisions of rules 163(b) shall, mutatis
mutandis, apply to application for the variation of a
permit or the variation of the counter-signature, if any,
,.
thereof by the inclusion of an additional vehicle sanec
tioned subject to the production of the registration certificate of the additional vehicle."
Section 5 of the Madras Act III of 1964, reads as follows :
"5 (I). Notwithstanding anything contained in the
principal Act, the route or routes or the area specified
D
in every stage carriage permit granted before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a condition attached to such permit under sub-section (3) of
section 48 of the principal Act, as if this Act were in
force on the date of grant of such pennit.
(2) Notwithstanding any judgment or order of any
E
Court, all proceedings taken for the grant of, and all
orders passed granting any variation, -extension or cur-
!ailment of the route or routes qr the area spetified in
a stage carriage permit before the comencement of this
Act by the State Transport Authority or by a Regional
Transport Authority or by an authority or person to
'
whom the powers and functions of the State Transport
Authority or a Regional Transport Authority have
been delegated, or by an authority exercising the powers
of apJJtlal or revision against the orders of the State
Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority,
shall not be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of
the fact that the State Transport Authority or the RegionG
al Transport Authortiy, as the case !Ilay be, had no
power to grant such variation, extension or curtailment
and all such proceedings taken or orders passed shall be
deemed always to have been validly taken or passed in
accordance with law notwithstanding the distance covered by the variation or extension exceeded twenty-four
H
kilometers."
•
The learned counsel for the respondent contends thats. 48(3)
(xxi), as an1ended, operates whether a condition to that effect
has been put in a permit or not.
But we are unable to read s. 48
)
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R.
in this sense.
Section 48(3) clearly enables tJ1e Regional Transport Authority to attach to the permit any or one of the twentyone conditions.
It may in a particular case put one or two or
more of the conditions or it may put all the conditions. It seem'
to be common ground that if any of the first twenty conditions in
'· 48 (3) is not attached to a permit it will not have effect.
What
makes condition (xxi) different is hard to appreciate. If condition (xxi) as amended is not attached to a permit it is difficult to
see how the Regional Transport Authority can derive any power
from the existence of s. 48 (3) ( xxi) in the Act.
Section 5 (I) of
Act Ill of 1964 makes the route or routes or the area specified in
Cl'cry stage carriage permit granted before the commencement of
the Amending Act a condition attached to such pennit under subsection (3) of section 48 of the principal Act; it docs not say that
s. 48(3)(xxi) shall be deemed to be a condition attached to every
soch permit.
The learned counsel for the respondent says that
this was the intention of the amendment, but if iliis was so, the
intention has not been carried out.
B
c
It was argued before us that the history of legislation support'
D
the interpretation placed by the High Court but, in our view, the
Act as it stands amended by Act III of I 964 is quite clear and it
is not necessary to go into the history of the legislation.
It seems to us that the High Court erred
in
holding tliat
s. 48(3)(xxi) of the Act, as amended, by itself gave power to the
Regional
Transport Authority to vary the
route
within
certain limits.
This power, in our view, would be exercisable only
if a condition to that effect is put in the permit.
In ilie case of
the appellant we saw the permit and what it contained was a condition similar to the condition mentioned ins. 48(3)(xxi) before
i1; amendment by Act III of I 964.
Therefore, for the purpose
of this appeal we must treat s. 48 (3 )(xxi), as amended, as nonexistent.
If s. 48(3)(xxi), as amended, is treated as non-existent, then there can be no difficulty in coming to ilie conclusion
that no limitation had been placed on the powers of the Regional
Transport Authority in respect of the grant of applications. for
variation of the route.
The order of the Regional
Transport
Authority cannot, therefore, be challenged as
being beyond its
jurisdiction.
·
Another question that was debated before us was whether
r. 208 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, extracted above, confer powers on a Transport Authority to vary pennits or whether
it is merely a procedural rul11. It seems to us that as the Act
stands at present, r. 208 does confer power on a transport aut~o
rity to vary all kinds of permits ~r c?nditions ~ttac~e_d therem.
This power is exercised on an apphcahon made m wntmg by the
holder of any permit.
E
F
G
H
..
•
•
..
•
RAM VILAS LTD. V. RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. (Sikri, J.)
19
A
It follows from the above r~asoning that the Regional TransB
c
port Authority had the authority under r. 208 to vary the permit
and nothing contained ins. 48(3)(xxi) limited its power in respect of the distance covered by the variation in this case.
We may mention that it was argued before us thats. 57(8) is
not merely procedural but also implies a power to receive applications and vary the conditions in a pennit.
This may be so, but it
is not necessary to decide in this case because in Madras r. 208
clearly confers power on the Transport Authority to vary the conditions of the pennit.
In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the
High Court set aside.
The appellant will have the costs incurred
in this Court.
Y.P.
Appeal allowed ..