REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus SHAJU ETC

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 785 · Decided: 17-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
785
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ANR.
v.
SHAJU ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1453 -1454 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 17, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.83 – Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989 – r.174(2)(c) – Whether r.174(2)(c) is ultravires the provisions
of the Act as the power with respect to prescription of age limit of a
motor vehicle is in the exclusive domain of the Central Government
– Held: No – r.174 (2) (c) made by the State Government to enable
replacement of the vehicle under a Transport permit, does not
impinge upon the powers of the Central Government with respect to
fixation of the age of the vehicle, or fitness of the vehicle conferred
upon it u/ss. 56 and 59 in Chapter IV – The scrutiny under r.174 is
only to enable the Authority to ensure that the subsisting permit is
not interrupted and at the same time public interest is not
compromised by deviating from the permit – The Rule will have no
bearing on the power of the Central Government and as such it
would not be ultra vires the provisions of the Act – Thus, r.174 (2)
(c) is intra vires the provisions of the Act and also s.83 of the Motor
Vehicles Act – It is valid and salutary.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989
– Whether r.174(2)(c) of the 1989 Rules, travels beyond and contrary
to s.83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Held: No – The rule is
neither beyond nor contrary to s.83.
Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 – r.174(2)(c) – Discretion
exercised by Authority – Scope of – Discussed.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.64, 65 – Distinction between
rule making power of Central government and State government –
Discussed.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.83 – Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989 – r.174(2)(c) – Subordinate Legislation –   Principles of
construction – Held: Reasoning adopted by the Division Bench in
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 785
785
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
the impugned order that r.174 (2) (c) has overridden the Act is not
correct because a subordinate legislation must be interpreted to
effectuate the statutory purpose and objective – The Rule should
enable the transport Authorities considering applications for
replacement to insist upon the permit holder to abide by the same
rigour and regulation that he was put to when the permit was granted
– High Court did not appreciate the context in which r.174 (2) (c)
r/w s.83 is to be construed – Judgment of High Court set aside –
Interpretation of Statutes.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.70, 71, 83 – Kerala Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1989 – r.174(2)(c) – Held: r.174(2)(c) is intended to
ensure that the conditions under which a transport permit is granted
is not diluted when the vehicle covered by the permit is sought to be
replaced by a new vehicle – Purpose and object of mandating
replacement by a vehicle of the same nature in s.83 is only to ensure
that the scrutiny and the conditions that were undertaken and
imposed at the time of the grant continue even during the subsistence
of the permit – Statutory scheme u/s.70 requiring an application for
a transport permit to provide material particulars include the
requirement of indicating the type of vehicle is also incorporated in
the Rules made by the State Government – The Rules, followed by
the Forms require details of the type of the vehicles to be furnished.
Words and Phrases – “of the same nature”, “same”, “nature”
– Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.83 – Discussed – Interpretation of
Statutes.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 83 is an enabling provision. It allows a
permit holder to replace the vehicle covered under the transport
permit. The right to replace the vehicle under a permit is subject
to the permission of the Authority. The right, as well as the power
to grant permission, are subject to the condition that the vehicle
to be replaced is ‘of the same nature’. The expression, ‘of the
same nature’ can have multiple meanings. This phrase, in its
natural expression would only mean having similar features. But
then, would ‘same’ mean similar, identical, equivalent, comparable,
interchangeable or related? Likewise, would the expression
“nature” mean type, feature, texture, make, model, design, or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
787
generation? These are open textual expressions, used in the
normal course to convey a meaning which the legislature would
not have intended to be read in a pedantic manner. When the
words in the Section allow multiple interpreta

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