1959 (11) TMI 72 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. Renewal period of stage carriage permits.
3. Fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
4. Validity of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority.
5. Relief to be granted to the petitioners.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
The primary issue is the interpretation of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which deals with the duration and renewal of permits. The petitioners argued that under Section 58(1)(a), a stage carriage permit should be effective for a period not less than three years and not more than five years. They contended that this provision should apply to renewals as well, as stipulated under Section 58(2), which states that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit.

The respondents, particularly the Mysore Government Road Transport Department, argued that the duration specified in Section 58(1)(a) applies only to the initial grant of permits and not to renewals. They maintained that the Authority has the discretion to fix any reasonable period for renewal.

The Court held that Section 58(2) mandates that an application for renewal should be treated as an application for a permit, implying that the same duration specified in Section 58(1)(a) applies to renewals. The Court emphasized that the legislature's intent was not to leave the duration of renewals to the discretion of the Authority but to ensure consistency with the initial grant period.

2. Renewal Period of Stage Carriage Permits:
The petitioners' permits were renewed only for one year, which they claimed was contrary to Section 58(1)(a) of the Act. They argued that they were entitled to a renewal period of not less than three years and not more than five years. The Court agreed with the petitioners, stating that the Authority must specify a period within the range of three to five years for renewals as well.

3. Fundamental Right to Carry on Business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that their fundamental right to carry on the business of transport of passengers, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, was violated. They argued that this right could only be restricted in the manner provided by the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a regulatory measure. The Court recognized this fundamental right and held that the Authority's action of limiting the renewal period to one year was a breach of this right.

4. Validity of the Order Passed by the Regional Transport Authority:
The Court found the order of the Regional Transport Authority, which limited the renewal period to one year, to be invalid. The Court stated that the Authority's discretion is not absolute and is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 58(1)(a). The Court held that the Authority must comply with the statutory requirement of specifying a renewal period of not less than three years and not more than five years.

5. Relief to be Granted to the Petitioners:
The Court quashed the part of the order that specified the renewal of the permits for only one year. It directed the Regional Transport Authority to comply with the requirements of the law as laid down in Section 58(1)(a) read with Section 58(2) in the order of renewal. The Court emphasized that it has the power to issue a direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the Authority to follow the law as laid down by the Court.

The Court also addressed the issue of severability, stating that it is open to sever the illegal part of the order from the legal part. It held that the Authority would have granted the renewal even if it knew that it could not reduce the period below three years.

Separate Judgment by J.L. Kapur, J.:
J.L. Kapur, J., expressed a different opinion on the form of the order. He emphasized that the Court should not substitute its own order for that of the Regional Transport Authority. He argued that the Court's power is limited to quashing the order and directing the Authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law laid down by the Court. He highlighted the principles of judicial review, stating that the Court's role is to check administrative action, not to supplant it.

Orders of the Court:
In accordance with the majority opinion, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the part of the order that specified the renewal of the permits for one year. It directed the Regional Transport Authority to comply with the requirements of the law as laid down in Section 58(1)(a) read with Section 58(2) in the order of renewal. The petitioners were awarded costs from the Mysore Government Road Transport Department, which had contested the petitions.