LexM. DURAISWAMI versus MURUGAN BUS SERVICE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·---------------------------------- A B c D E F G- H < 68 M. DURAISWAMY v. < - MIJRUGAN BUS SERVICE & ORS. APRIL 2, 1986 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND H.P. THAKKAR, JJ.) _Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ss. 45, 57 and 63 read with Rules .163-A, 163-B and 208 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1940 - Inter-regional permit - Application for variation of existing permit involving extension of route/area lying in the jurisdiction of another RTA - Whether to be made to RTA whichz-- granted permit or to RTA which has jurisdiction over area in respect of which extension is sought. ' The appellant was the holder of an inter-regional permit in respect of a motor vehicle plying on the town service route No.IA from Erode· Railway Station to Tiruchengode. The major portion of the route mentioned in the permit of the appellant· was lying within the jurisdiction of the Regional T<ansport Authority of Periyar and the smaller portion lay within the District of Salem. The appellant applied to the Regional Transport · Authority of · the District of Periyar which had"' issued the aforesaid permit for its variation involving, inter alia, conversion of the town service into a mofussil service and extension of route from Tiruchengode to Salem. If the route in respect of which extension is sought is added then ··. the major portion of the total route would be within the District of Salem. The Regional Transport _Authority aftery notifying the application for variation under section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and considering the representations/objections thereto, rejected the application ' on the ground that it was not proper for it to grant the extension since the entire sector in respect of which the extension was sought lay within Salem District and that the said sector was well-served by stage carriage services. Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Transport Authority at Periyar, the appellant preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the variation (including the extension) DURAISWA11Y v. MlJRUGAN BUS SERVICE 69 ~applied for with slight modificati~n. Thereupon, some of the objectors to the ·original application for variation filed befo:e the High Court civil revision petition3 and writ petition against the order of the Tribunal. The High Court allowed the petitions holding that the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for variation since the entire route in,respect of ~w'!rlch extension was sought lay within the jurisdiction of the Salem Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, the proceeding3 commenced with the said application were liable to be quashed. Hence this appeal by special leave • _, Allowing the appeal on the question whether an application for the variation of an existing permit involving lthe extension of the route or the area , specified in the 'permit, where the portion of the route or area in respect of which extension is sought. lies entirely within the jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority which had not granted the permit, should be made to the Regional Transport Authority which had granted the permit or to the Regional Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the route or area in respect of which extension is sought lies, HEID: 1. Section 45 of the Act does not apply to the ;.case of a variation of permit and that when a variation of a permit is sought the application for the grant of such variation should be made to the Regional Transport Authority which has granted the permit even though the entire route or - area in respect of which extension is sought lies in another region or a major portion of the entire route (including the -.:;ew route or area) lies within another region. On such application being made it is the duty of the Regional Transport Authority which has granted_the permit to consider whether the variation sought should be sanctioned in the public interest or not. If that Regional Transport Authority grants variation prayed for, then the concurrence of the other Regional Transport Authority would have to be sought in accordance with either section 63(1) of the Act or where there re rules made corresponding to rules 163-A, 163-B and 208 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, as far as may be, in accordance with such rules. The decision of the High Court is,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.