MOHD. ASHFAQ versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL U.P. AND ORS

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 10-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

., 
563 
MOHD. ASHFAQ 
v. 
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL U.P. AND ORS: 
September 10, 197 6 
(P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S. 58(2) proviso-Delay in applying for renewal 
of existing permit-I/ could be condoned-Chapter IV A ,-If a self contained 
code-Renewal application under S. 68F( ID )-Whether s. 57 applicable. 
Limitation Act, 1963-Ss. 5 and 29(2)-lf applicable. 
Under the proviso to s. 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 an applica-
tion for renewal of an existing permit shall be made not less than 120 days be' 
fore the date of expiry of the permit. The procedure to be followed in this 
respect is the same as provided in s. 57 for the grant of a fresh permit. Under 
s. 58(3) a delay of not more than 15 days in making the renewal application 
can. be condoned by the Regional Transport Authority. 
The proviso to s. 6SF(ID) provides for the renewal of an existing permit 
for a limited period when a Scheme is published under s. 68C. Since a Scheme 
was published under this section the appellant made an application under s. 68F 
(lD) for renewal of his permit. It was rejected by the RTA on the ground that 
there was delay of 18 days which was not capable of being condoned. 
The 
State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissed his appeal and the High Court 
summarily rejected his writ petition. 
In appeal to this Court it wrui contended that (i) Chapter IVA of the Act, 
c 
D 
in which s. 68 occurs, being a self-contained code the proviso to s. 58(2) was not 
applicable . in the case of an application for renewal filed under the proviso to 
E 
s. 68F(ID) or {ii) in the alternative the delay could be condoned by the RTA 
for sufficient cause under s. 5 read withs. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: (!) (a) Section 68F(1D) imposes a prohibition on grant or renewal 
of permit during the intervening period between the publication of a scheme under 
s. 68C and the publication of the approved scheme and if the proviso were not 
enacted, renewal of an existing permit expiring after the publication of the 
F 
schc:me under s. 68C would have been barred. This, the legislature did not want 
andl hence the proviso was introduced permitting renewal of an existing permit 
though for a limited period, despite the general prohibition enacted in oub-s. (ID). 
l11is renewal was not intended to be some special kind of renewal. 
There is-
no reason why the provisions of s. 57 and the proviso to s. 58(2) should not 
apply in Cal!e of a renewal application under the proviso to s. 68F(1D). 
. 
[569 A-BJ 
(b) Chapter IVA is not a self-contained code and the other sections apply 
G 
to an application under the proviso to s. 68F(lD) of the Act. [569D] 
(i) The procedure in s. 57 .applies because, there is no other procedure pres-
cribed by the Act. 
[569CJ 
(ii) The time limit specified in the proviso to s. 58(2) also applied as other-
wise: there would be no time limit for making an application for renewal. 
[5690] 
(iii) Section 68F(3) also proceeds on the assumption that, but for its enact-
ment, an order made by the RTA under sub-3 (1) or (2) of s. 68F would have 
been appealable under s. 64 and it was to exclude the applicability of s. 64 that 
68F(3) was enacted. 
[569 E-F] 
H 
A 
B 
·C 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 1977] 1 S.C.R. 
~2) '.fhe word used. in sub-s. ~ is.'may' and not 'shall' and the RTA is given 
a discretion. to entertam an application for renewal of a permit even where it 
~s be>:ond tlllle, th~ugh not more than 15 days. It could never have been the 
~ntentio!l of the le~1Sla_ture that even where there is no sufficient cause for delay 
m makmg an apphcal!on for renewal, the Regional Transport Authority should 
still be bound to entertain the application for renewal merely on the ground that 
the delay is of not more than 15 days. f570F, 571A-B] 
. 
(3) (a) Section 29.(2). of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes s. 5 applicable 
in the case of an apphcal!on for renewal unless its applicability can be said to 
be expressly excluded by any provision of the Act. Sub-section (3) of s. 58 in 
so ~any terms says that the RTA may condone the delay in making of an 
apphcat10n for renewal a_nd entertain it on merits provided the delay is of not 
more th~n 15 days. 
This clearly means that if the application for renewal is 
beyond tlllle by more than 15 days, the1 RTA shall no~ be entitled to entertain it. 
[571E-GJ 
<b) .There is an express provision in sub-

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