ACHYUT SHIVRAM GOKHALE versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 16-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ACHYUT SHIVRAM GOKHALE 
v. 
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 1988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section 63(6)-Special permit-Right 
of person to obtain-Difference between contract carriage permit and 
special permit. 
On November 29, 1973 the Government of Maharashtra Notified 
a scheme approved under section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 
authorising the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to 
operate contract carriage services in the entire area of the State of 
Maharashtra to the complete exclusion of all other persons except those 
falling under the seven categories mentioned therein. The appellant 
who did not belong to any one of the seven categories applied to the 
D 
Regional Transport Authority for a special permit under section 63(6) 
of the Act on the route Bombay to Shirdi for five days. This application 
was rejected because the appellant had not produced a 'No objection 
Certificate' from the State Road Transport Corporation. It was held by 
the Regional Transport Authority that in the absence ofa 'No Objection 
Certificate' no special permit could be issued under section 63(6) of the 
E 
Act. 
Tbe Maharashtra State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the 
appellant's appeal holdilll! that a special permit issued under section 
63(6) of the Act was llllt a contract carriage permit issued under the Act 
and that the scheme did not have the effect of preventing any person 
F 
frQm applying for a special permit under section 63( 6) to operate a 
p.ublic service vehicle on any of the routes in the State. The Corporation 
filed a writ petition in the High Court against the Tribunal's order. The 
High Court allowed the Writ Petition. 
Disposing of the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the 
G High Court, it was, 
HELD: ( l) A contract carriage permit and a special permit are 
not one and the same, though the special permit has some of the features 
of a contract carriage permit. [454E-F] 
H 
(2) A Special permit is ordinarily taken to meet a need that exists 
448 
. ,. 
•. ' 
A.S. GOKHALE v. R.T. OFFICER 
449 
for a few days .like carrying a marriage party or persons going to a 
pilgrimage, etc. [454F] 
(3) The distinguishing features of the two types of permits are: ( 1) 
A permit for which an application is made under section 49 of the Act 
and which is granted under section 51 of the Act is called a contract 
carriage permit. A permit issued under section 63(6) of the Act is called 
a special permit; (2) while a contract carriage permit issued by a Re-
gional Transport Authority of any one region is not valid in any other 
region unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Trans-
port Authority of the other region as provided under section 63(1) of the 
Act, a special permit issued by.one Regional Transport .~uthority under 
section 63( 6) of the Act is· valid in any other region or State 
without the countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of 
the other region or the other State as the case may be; (3) While the 
duration of a contract carriage permit is as prescribed under section 
58( 1) of the Act, a Special permit can be issued only for a specific period 
which may be for a few days only in accordance with the rules pre-
scribed for that purpose; and ( 4) A contract carriage permit is renew-
able under section 58(2) of the Act, but there is no corresponding pro-
vision providing for renewal ofa special permit. 14548-E] · 
( 4) The provision in the scheme which excludes operation of con-
. tract carriage services by persons other than those who are permitted to 
A 
B 
c 
D 
do so under the scheme refers to only those persons who wish to operate 
E 
contract carriage services under permits issued under section 51 of the 
Act. The scheme does uot in any way prevent the issuing of special 
pe1mits under section 63(6)" of the Act by the Regional Transport 
Authorities in accordance with law as it does any that holders of special 
permits under section 63(6) :.vould also be excluded from running the 
public service vehicles. [4578-C] 
F 
(5) The scheme does not provide that the clause regarding exclu-
sion of other persons from operating contract carriages would cease to 
operate if the Corporatfon issued a 'No Objection Certificate'. The 
insistence on the production of a 'No objection Certificate' from the 
Corporation by a· person applying for a special permit under section 
G 
63(6) of the Act was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.