Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 concerning the renewal of a stage carriage permit for an inter-regional route between Saraipalli and Sarangarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant, Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, held a permit originally granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, which was renewed on August 7, 1963 for a period of three years. The permit covered regions within both Bilaspur and Raipur, and for validity in the Raipur region, the permit required counter-signature by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur. On September 13, 1963, the appellant applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur for renewal of the counter-signature on the renewed permit. Despite an objection from respondent no. 2 that the application was barred by time, the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur granted renewal of the counter-signature on February 24, 1964, holding that the application had been filed within six weeks of the renewal order by Bilaspur. Respondent no. 2 challenged this order before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court quashed the order dated February 24, 1964 on the ground that the application for renewal of the counter-signature had not been made within the period prescribed under Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court with a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court identified the core legal issue as whether the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur was competent to renew the counter-signature on the inter-regional permit, in light of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940. The Court noted that under Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a permit granted by a Regional Transport Authority of one region is not valid in another region unless countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. The Court examined Rules 61, 62, and 63 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940. Rule 61 dealt with applications for renewal of permits. Rule 62 granted power to a Regional Transport Authority to counter-sign permits, but it was expressly made subject to Rule 63. Rule 63 provided that the power to counter-sign the permit is vested in the authority which grants the renewal of the permit. The Court construed the word 'may' in Rule 63 as obligatory in the context and language of the rule, although permissive in form. Consequently, when the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur renewed the permit, the power to renew the counter-signature lay exclusively with that authority. Rule 62 being subject to Rule 63, the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur had no power to renew the counter-signature. The Supreme Court therefore held that the High Court was correct in quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, although on a different ground. The Court did not find it necessary to decide the limitation issue under Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order was upheld. The permit was held valid only for the route within the limits of the Bilaspur region.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles - Inter-regional Permits and Counter-signature - Statutory Interpretation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 63 and Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, Rules 62, 63 - The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur renewed counter-signature on a permit for an inter-regional route, but the High Court quashed that order. The Supreme Court held that Rule 63 vested power to counter-sign the permit in the authority which grants renewal of the permit, and Rule 62 was expressly subject to Rule 63, thereby depriving Regional Transport Authority, Raipur of any such power. Held that the High Court's quashing was correct. B) Statutory Interpretation - Permissive Language Construed as Obligatory - Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, Rule 63 - The word 'may' in Rule 63, though permissive in form, was construed as obligatory in the context and language of the rule, thereby conferring exclusive power on the renewing authority to counter-sign. C) Motor Vehicles - Limitation for Renewal of Counter-signature - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 58(2) - The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on whether an application for renewal of counter-signature must be made within the time prescribed by Section 58(2), as it decided the appeal on the ground of lack of competence under Rules 62 and 63.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Regional Transport Authority, Raipur was competent to renew the counter-signature on an inter-regional stage carriage permit granted/renewed by Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur under Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, and whether the High Court correctly quashed the order of Regional Transport Authority, Raipur.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated February 24, 1964. The permit was held valid only for the route within the limits of the Bilaspur region.
Law Points
- Section 63 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1939 provides that a permit granted by Regional Transport Authority of one region is not valid in another region unless countersigned by Regional Transport Authority of that other region
- Rule 63 of Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules
- 1940 vests power to counter-sign permit in the authority which grants renewal of the permit
- the word 'may' in Rule 63 is obligatory though permissive in form
- Rule 62 is expressly subject to Rule 63 and hence power under Rule 62 is taken away by Rule 63
- therefore Regional Transport Authority Raipur had no power to renew counter-signature when Regional Transport Authority Bilaspur renewed the permit
- Court did not decide limitation issue under Section 58(2) Motor Vehicles Act
- 1939 but decided case on competence under rules
