DELHI ADMINISTRATION versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 70 · Decided: 09-08-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

::s 
70 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
August 9, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAzAL ALI, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1959, Sections 48(3) (xiv) and 63(2)-Scope af. 
The Governments of the States of Punjab and Delhi entered into an agree~ 
ment about 30 years back providing for the running of public service vehicles on 
routes which covered each of the two States so th&t every one of such rorites 
C 
had one ·terminus in one of the States and the other in the other. In pursuance 
of the agreement one of the Governments would issue permit~ under the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1939 and the same would be countersigned by the other SfutC: 
before the former plied its buses on the routes covered by such routes. One 
such. ·permit related to the Delhi·Kamal route and was countersigned by the 
State Transport Authority, Delhi. The routes were extended by the Punjab 
State authorities under permits granted by them for intra-state routes connecting 
0 
different towns in the State of Punjab itself. Thus a permit was issued tn 
favour of the Punjab Roadways for the route from Karnal to Chai1digarh so 
that the bus operating on the Delhi-Kamal route would carry passengers from 
Delhi to Cbandigar-h via Karnal. In 1966, the appe11ant objected 
to 
the 
exploitation by ·the State of Punjab of the inter-State routes in the mariner above-
· stated, that is, by extending them beyond the termini specified in that behalf 
under the countersignatures made by the State of Delhi, and apprOO.ched the 
E 
Inter-State Transport Commission constituted under s. 63-A of M.V. Act with 
a request for interference. 
The Commission answered it in favour of the 
appellant State, and held that "it would JlOt be in order that if orie vehicle 
operating on two permits for two routes were to book direct passengers travelling 
on both the routes. 
Operations which would contravene this advice should be 
stopped and the services be so regulated to ensure that the 
provisions 
of the· Motor Vehicles Act are not violated... Ti.e State of Punjab went up 
F 
in appeal to the Inter State Transport Appellate Tribunal under rule 24 of the 
Inter-State Transport Commission Rules 1960. 
The appeal was dismissed and 
the respondent State filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was 
a1lowed by the Division Bench. 
'G 
ll 
Dismissing the appeal by certificate the Court, 
HELD: 
(1) According to clause (xiv) of sub-section (3) of s. 48 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1959, the conditions attached to the grant of permit, ui1der 
s. 63(2) ibid, may be; (a) that the tickets issued to passengers, shiill bear 
specified particul<l!rs; (b) that the· tickets shall show the fares actually charged; 
and (c) that records of the tickets issued shall be kept in the manner specified. 
None of these conditions embraces a restriction on the permit holder that he 
shall not ply his vehicles beyond the specified inter-state route even if that is 
done under another permit which is valid according to law and, therefore. 
clause (xiv) of s. 48(3) read withs. 63(2) of the Act will be of no avail. [76H, 
77A·CJ 
' 
• 
• 
' 
-1 
4 
r 
DELHI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, J.) 
71 
(2) The \1.'0rds "Tickets will be issued for the destinations bet\Veen Delhi and 
A 
Karn.al. Destination boards should be exhibited" 
merely lay down positive 
instructions. which the permit!holder had to carry out, namely, that he would 
not refuse the issue of a ticket between the two termini, i.e., Delhi and Karnal, 
.and th&t he would atlo exhibit a board stating that the Vehicle in· question would 
cover the route from Delhi to Karnal. Beyond that the words do not go aOO 
cannot be construed to mean that the vehicle could not ply beyoii.d ·Karna! 
or that a board saying that it was going to Chandigarh via Ka.rnal could not 
B 
be exhibited, or that tickets could not be issued for any stations except those 
lying between Delhi and Karnal. In fact, the authority counter-signing the 
permit had no concern at all \Vith any route beyond Karnal. The plying ot 
the vehicle from Kamal to Chandigarh would be gove·med not by the permit 
covering the Delhi-Karnal route or by the .counter-signature on it but by another 
permit issued by the authority competent to deal with the route between Kamal 
and Chandigarh. 
[77D-H] 
C 
(3 J 1 he plying of vehicles by the Haryana- Roadways beyond the inter-state 
route under valid ·permits issu~d by t·he competent authority does not amount 
to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.