ASHWANI KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BIKANER AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 29-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ASHWANI KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. 
A 
v. 
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BIKANER AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 1999 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 88( 1), (5) and (6)-lnter State Per-
mit~Appellants granted permit for plying buses on Sangaria-Delhi route 
opened by R-1--Major part of the route falling in the State of Haryana-State c 
-~ 
Transport Corporation challenged the grant of permit to appellants before 
High Court in a writ petition claiming that the said route was already covered 
by its services provided under Regional Transport Agreement between the 
States of Rajasthan and Haryana-Writ petition allowed, permit of appellants 
quashed-On appeal--Held, independent construction of Section 88(1) of the 
Act would frustrate objective of the Act-Existence of a route is condition D 
precedent for grant of inter-State route under Section 88 (5) of the Act-inter-
State routes cannot be created unilaterally by one State as it requires a recipro-
cal agreement. 
Appellants had been granted permit for plying their buses on the E 
Sangaria (Rajasthan) Delhi route by Respondent no. 1 Authority. It was 
claimed to be a part of Ganganagar to Delhi route and was stated to be 
falling in the reciprocal agreement between the two States. Respondent no. 
2 the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation challenged the grant of the 
said route to the appellants, by filing a writ petition before High Court 
submitting that under the Reciprocal Transport Agreement arrived at F 
between the States of Rajasthan and Haryana, R-2 was providing services 
on the Ganganagar-Delhi via Hanumangarh-Sangaria-Dabwal- Hissar, etc. 
In the writ petition it was alleged that the appellants had applied for grant 
of the permit on the new inter-state route without mentioning necessary 
particulars. Later the appellants amended their applications by giving G 
details that out of the total length of the said route of 359 Km., 3 Km. fell 
I 
in the State of Rajasthan, 323 Km. fell in the State of Haryana while the 
remaining 33 Km. fell in Delhi. After the said amendment, R-1 decided to 
-1, 
open a new Sangaria-Delhi inter-state route for which temporary stage 
carriage permits were granted to the appellants. The said writ petition was 
allowed by the High Court holding that opening, establishing and creation H' 
211 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R .. 
A of inter-state route lying in two or more states was the prerogative of the 
. concerned states by entering into a reciprocal agreement and to get it 
finalised by following the procedure prescribed under Section 88 (5) & (6) . 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court also quashed the permit 
granted in favour of the appellants. Appeal preferred by the appellants 
B before the Division Bench of the High Court was dismissed. Hence the 
present appeal. 
The appellants contended that Section 88 (1) of the Act has to be 
construed independently which did not prescribe the existence of a recipro~ 
cal agreement regarding the inter-state route permits. It was further 
C contended that Section 88 (5) and (6) .of the Act cannot come in the way 
of Regional Transport Authority of a State, which when granted, becomes 
valid in the other State upon its being counter-signed. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The contention of the appellant that Section 88(1) of the 
D Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has to be construed independently ignores the 
opening words of the Section "except as may be otherwise prescribed" 
completely. Such prescribing can be by way of the Act itself or by rules. 
framed under it. Section 88(5) and (6) of the Act provide for procedure of 
entering into agreement between the states for grant of inter-state permits. 
The grant· of inter-state permits concerning the present appeals are per-
E missible under Section 88(5) of the Act. The existence of a route is a 
condition precedent for exercise of power under Section 88(1) of the Act 
Inter-State route under the scheme of the Act has to be reciprocal and 
cannot be unilaterally created by one State or an Authority in the State. 
The concerned State Governments are supposed to deliberate and decide 
the routes to be opened as inter-State routes by determining the .number 
F of trips each route to have and prescribe other conditions for the smooth 
· functioning of the Act to achieve its objective which is claimed to be a social 
welfare legislation. [216-D-E; 217-B-C-D] 
2. The Motor V

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.