PUNJAB SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE, MOUDHAPARA versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAIPUR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 15-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
I ... 
) 
\ 
' 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
I' 
PUNJAB SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE, 
MOUDHAPARA . 
v. 
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, 
RAIPUR AND ANOTHER 
October 15, 1965 
[P. 
B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J., 
K. 
N. 
WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), s. 63 and Central Provi11ces and 
Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, rr. 62 and 63-Scope of. 
The Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, granted the appellant 
renewal of the stage carriage permit for an inter-regional route. 
The 
appellant, thereafter, applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, 
for renewal of the grant of counter-signature on the renewed permit, and 
it was granted. In an application under Art. 226 by the 2nd respondent, 
the High Court quashed the order of the Regional Transport Authority, 
Raipur, on the ground that the appellant's application for renewel of the 
counter-signature was barred by time. 
ln appeal to this Court, 
HELD : On a proper construction of the Central 
Provinces and 
Berar Motor Vehicles Rules made by the State Government in regard to 
the grant of permits and counter-signatures of inter-regional permits, the 
Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, was not competent to renew the 
counter-signature on the permit for the inter-regional route granted by the 
Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, and the permit was valid only 
so far as it related to the .route within the limits of Bilaspur region, 
[225 HJ 
Even though by s. 63 of .the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the power to 
•counter-sign the permit is entrusted to the Regional Transport Authority 
of the region in which the remaining part of the route is situate, th• 
effect of r. 63 is that the power to counter-sign the permit is vested in 
the Authority which grants the renewal of the permit. 
In the context and 
the language of the rule the word "may" in the rule, though permissive 
in form, 
is obligatory. 
If the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, 
had power to renew the counter-signature on the permit under the rule, 
it must be held that the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, had no 
such power under r. 62, because, the latter rule 
fs 
expressly 
made 
subject to the provisions of r. 63, and the power granted to the Regional 
Transport Authority under r. 62 is taken away by the provisions of 
r. 63. [227 C-G] 
Ml s. Bundelkhand Motors Transport Company v. Beharilal, [1966] l 
S.C.R. 485, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 152 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 13, 
H 
1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 
373 of 1964. 
M. S. Gupta, for the appellant. 
222 
SUPREME COURT 
REPORTS 
[1966] 2 s.c.R 
B. R. L. Iyengar, for the respondents. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. 
On August 7, 1963 the Regional Transport 
Authority, Bilaspur granted to the Punjab Sikh Regular Motor 
Service, (hereinafter called the appellant), renewal of a stage 
carriage permit for an inter-regional route-Saraipalli to Saran-
B 
garh-in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 
The permit was valid 
upto August 5, 1963 and by the order of renewal dated August 
7, 1963 the permit was renewed for a period of three years. 
On September 13, 1963 the appellant applied to the Regional 
Transport Authority, Raipur for renewal of the grant of counter-
signature on the renewed pem1it. 
Respondent no. 2 objected 
to the renewal of the grant of counter-signature on the ground 
that the application of the appellant dated September 13, 1963 
c 
was barred by time. 
The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur 
held that the application for. renewal of the grant of counter-
signature was not made within the time prescribed by rule 62 
D 
of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules but 
it took the view that the application for renewal had been filed 
within six weeks of the date of the passing of the order of renewal 
of the pennit by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur and 
therefore the application for the renewal of the grant of counter-
signature could not be rejected on the ground that it was time 
E 
barred. 
The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur accordingly 
granted the renewal of the counter-signature on the permit by 
its order dated February 24, 1964. Respondent no. 2 thereafter 
applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of 
the Constitution of India for ·a writ quashing the order dated 
February 24, 1964 passed by the Region
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.