LexSRI RAM VILAS SERVICE LTD., KUMBAKONAM versus RAMAN & RAMAN PRIVATE LTD., & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SRI RAM VILAS SERVICE I.TD., KUMBAKO:'llAM
RAMAN & RAMAN PRIVATE LTD., & ANR.
October 20, 1967
!J. c. SHAH. S. M. SIKRI AND J. M. SllELAT, JJ.]
~\fotor Vcl1i£-les Act (4 of 1939). s. 4S(3) a11d r. 208-Variation £l/
Route-Jurisdiction of Regional J'ranspvrt A11rhori1y-·-!i.Jadras Act (1 of
1964), s. 5(1).
The appellant\. application for \·ariatio!l of 11 roult: extending beyond
24 kilometers was acccp1cd by the Regional Transport Authority.
The
responden~ who had unsucce;sfully objected before the Authority, filed
a writ petition in the High Court to quash the order.
The High Court
accepted the \l.·rit petition holding that ;uty V1triation in excess of 24 kilo-
meters \\o·as ex fcrcie illegal and violation Qf the intcn<ln1cnt of the lcgis.t1-
turc enacting ~adras Act 3 of· 1964, v.·hich amended the ~lotor \'chicles
Act.
In appeal, this Court,
HELD: 'fhe Regional Transport Au1hority
h;id authoril)' under r.
208 to vary 1he permit-and nnthing contained in s. 48(3)(xxi) of
the
l\1otor Vehicle .... Act Jimitcd its po'·vcr in re~pect or ·the dislancc coverc<l
by the variation in this case.
[19A]
Section 5(1) of Madras Ac! 3 of 196-1 made the route or routes or
the area specified in every slagc carriage pc·rmit granlcd before the com-
mcnc.ement of the Amending Act a con<lition
attached
to such pcrn1it
under sub-s. (3) of s. 4R ()t the Principi!l
Ac1~ it
did not ~~•Y that ~.
48(3)(x.xi) sh;dl he dccn1cd lo be a conditi0n
attacht.-<l to cvcrv
such
permit.
[ l 8CJ
•
The High Court erred in holding that s. 48(3 )(x-.i) of the Act.
as
amended, by itsclf gave poVr·cr to the Regional Transport
Authori1y tn
vary the rout~ within cc1 fain Jinlits.
·1 hi...
JlO\vcr could
he cxcrciscJ
only if a condition to that effect was put in 1hc permit. fn the case of the
appellant the permit contained a condition ~in1il:ir to the condilion men-
tioned in s. 48(3)(xxiJ before it< amendment by Act 3 of 1964. Thcrc-
for·o, for the purpose of this appeal s. 48(3) (xxi). as amended ho; to be
treated as non-existent.
118&(;]
CIVIL APPEi.LATE JuR1so1cr10N :
Civil Appeal No. 258 of
1967.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 3, 1966
A
c
D
E
F
of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1966.
G
G. Ramaswamy, R. Gopalakrislmm1 and K. K. Ven11gopa/, for
the appellant.
M. N. Rangachari, M. K. Ramam11rt'1i. S/lyamal!' Pappu and
Vi11eet Kumar, for respondent No. I.
The Judgm\:nt of the Court was delivered by
ff
Sikri, J.
This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court
of Madras is directed against its order dated October 3, 1966,
-.
A
B
..
c
D
F
G
H
•
RAM VILAS LTD. V. RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. (Sikri, J,)
15
allowing the writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Consti-
tution by M/s Raman & Raman (P) Ltd., Kumbal::onam, and
quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Thanja-
vur, dated March 28, 1966, whereby the Regional Transport
Authority had granted the application for variation of the route
Sirkali to Kumbakonam of M/s Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. Kum"
bal::onam, in respect af two stage c:rrriages.
On December 9, 1965, the application of M/s Sri Ram Vilas
Service Ltd., Kumbakonam for variation of the route Sirkali to
Kumbakonam was notified under s. 57 ( 3) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939. M/s Raman & Raman (P) Ltd., among others, filed
objections and after hearing the objections, by order dated March
28, 1966, the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, granted
the application as, according to it, the variation applied for was
in the interest of the travelling public. The distance covered by
the variation extended beyond 24 kilometers. M/s Raman &
Raman (P) Ltd. filed the petition under Art 226 of the Constitu-
tion to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
The question which arises in this appeal is whether the
Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to vary the route
by extending it beyond 24 kms.
The High Court, following its
earlier decision in M/ s Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. v. M/ s
Murugan Transports, Tiruchirapalli and Others(') held that "any
variation in excess of 24 kilometers would be ex facie illegal ·and
violation of the intendment of the Legislature enacting Act 3 of
1964."
The answer to the question posed above depends upon the true
construction of some sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,
as amended by the Madras Act ill of 1964. The relevant statu-
tory provisions are as Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.