Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1965 (10) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the renewal of a stage carriage permit. 2. Timeliness of the application for renewal of countersignature. 3. Jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to countersign the renewed permit. 4. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and associated rules. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Renewal of a Stage Carriage Permit: The Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, granted the appellant renewal of a stage carriage permit for an inter-regional route (Saraipalli to Sarangarh) on August 7, 1963, valid for three years. The permit was initially valid until August 5, 1963. The renewal was contested on the grounds of timeliness and jurisdiction. 2. Timeliness of the Application for Renewal of Countersignature: The appellant applied for the renewal of the countersignature on September 13, 1963. Respondent No. 2 objected, claiming the application was time-barred. The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, held that the application was within six weeks of the renewal order date and thus not time-barred, granting the renewal on February 24, 1964. However, the High Court later quashed this order, stating the application must be made within the period prescribed by Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires an application for renewal to be made not less than sixty days before the permit's expiry. 3. Jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to Countersign the Renewed Permit: The High Court ruled that the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, lacked jurisdiction to countersign the permit renewed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, due to the appellant's failure to apply within the prescribed period. The Supreme Court, however, focused on the rules made by the State Government, particularly Rules 61, 62, and 63 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940. Rule 61 requires applications for renewal to be made not less than two months before the permit's expiry. Rule 62(a) specifies that applications for renewal of countersignatures must follow the periods prescribed by Rule 61. Rule 63(a) allows the authority renewing the permit to also renew any countersignature, making the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, competent to countersign the permit for the inter-regional route. 4. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Associated Rules: Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates applications for permits to be made to the Regional Transport Authority where the vehicle will be used. Section 47 outlines the procedure for considering applications, while Section 48 allows the authority to grant permits. Section 57 prescribes the application procedure, and Section 58(1) specifies the validity period of permits. Section 58(2) requires applications for renewal to be made not less than sixty days before expiry, with a fifteen-day grace period. Section 63(1) stipulates that permits granted in one region are invalid in another unless countersigned by the respective authority. The Supreme Court found that Rule 63(a) supersedes Section 63(1), granting the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, the power to countersign the permit, thus invalidating the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur's countersignature. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, was not competent to renew the countersignature on the permit, and the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, alone had this power. Consequently, the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, dated February 24, 1964, was deemed illegal and ultra vires, and the High Court's quashing of this order was affirmed. The appeal was dismissed, and the validity of the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, for the Bilaspur region was upheld.
|