LexSHIV CHAND AMOLAK CHAND versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
c
D
F
G
•
SHIV CHAND AMOLAK CHAND
.v
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ANR.
October 7, 1983
[P. N .. BHAGWATI ·AND R. B. MISRA JJ.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sectfon 47(3) and 57(8) sco;e of- Wh~ther
Section 47(3) of the Act will be applicable when an application is made by a
. holder of a permit for extension of the rouie specified in the permit.
The appell~nts ·held stage carriage permit granted to them by the
Regional Transport Auth_ority for the route _Dabra-Karera Via Lodi Mato-
. extended\uPto Gwalior. On 22-6-1978, this route for which. the -permit wis
. held by the appellants wa:s modifie~ at their own request, by deleting the
pOrtion of Jie route from Karer8. to Shivpuri. By a notification d11ted 4-8-1971
certain routes were nationalised Under Scheme No. 11-M which came into
effect from 25-9-1978, including deletion of the portion of the route from
Shivpuri .to Satanwara, with the result the permit of the appellants· remained
operative· only for the remaining portion ·of the route namely, Satanwara-
Gwalior Via ·Dabra. Effective from 19-12-1978, the State Gov('rnment issued
another Notification making mOditications in the route schemes. Since this
modHication perniitted plying of stage carriages by private operators even on
a portion of a nationalised roi.ite conneCting a district headquarters and not
more than 20 KMs in length, the appellants made an- application to the
Regi~al Transport Atithority-for restoring the portion of the· route from
Shivpuri to Satanwara on the.ground that Shivpuri waS a district headquarter
a"nd the portion of the route from ·shivpuri and Satanwara was less than 20
KMs. The Regional Transport Authority rejeCted the said application on the
.grqund that the"Notificatio~ dated 18-12-1978 did not have any retrospectiVc
effect and therefore, the appellants .were not entitled to ciu~omatic restoration
of the porti9n of the route from Shivpuri to Satanwara.
The appellants thereupon filed an application· in t.he prescribed form for
extension of the route specified in their permit from Satanwara to Shivpuri.
The said application Was rejected after hearing the objections on two grounds,
namely (i) the specific· order of the State Govt. Curtailing the Satanwara-
Shivpuri pOrtion of the applicants' Permit, while approving Scheme 11-M
cannot be tfeated as having been ainended by the General Amendment to the
Scheme and (ii) no extCnsion of the route could be granted without ·following
the pr~cedure laid down !n ~Section 47(3) of the ACt. This order of .the
Regional . ifranspOrt Authority was challenged by the· appellants in a writ
· petition filed .in the High Court of Madhya Prades~. The ~igh Court rejected
the petition holding that by reason of the express language of Sub-Section (8)
ofSectioD 57,.an application for extension of the i'oute specified in an existing
permit was tantamount to an .appl~caiion for grant Of a new permit and hCnce
' -,. ..
-
•
.>-
'
·~.
SHIV CHAND v. R.T.A.
it was subject to the provisions of section 47(3)'and it could not be Considered
.without following the procedure prescribed by Section 47(3). Hence the appeal
after obtai~iog special leave of the Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : I.I The application made by the appellants 'for extension ot
the route specified in• their pc:nnit from Satanwara to Shivpuri could be
considered by the Regional Transport Authority without following the proce-
dure prescribed ·under Sub-Section (3) of Section 47. [297 E·H]
<\
1.2. ·However, under the terms of Sub-Section (8) of Section 57. this
application of'the appellants was liable to be treated as an application for th1
grant of a new permit, since in .effect and substance, it was· an application for
varying the condition of the perrnit by ~xtending the route from Shivpuri to
Satanwara. But the question is for wh3t purpo.:e? [297 G-H]
2.1 Having regard to the several decisions of the Supreme Court and
particularly the decision in Mohd. Ibrahim v. ·State TranSport Appellate,
T,Jbunal, MarJras, [1971] 1 S.C.R. 474, the law is well settled that an applicatipn
for grant of a new permit cannot be ·entertained by the Regional Transport
Authority under Section 48. unless the limit of the number of stage-carriages
for which permits ·niay be granted is first deter~iried ~n,der ~cciiori 47(3).
There are two independent steps required to be taken in connection with the
arant of·a Permit, ihe first being the detern1Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.