LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus SHRI NOOR MOHAMMAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
J)
F
G
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
v.
SHRI NOOR MOHAMMAD
August 9, 1972
84 I
[K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.]
Motor Vehicl<" Act \4 of 1939) ss. 43 and 44(3) (b)-When State
Transport Authority
ca~z take
over functions of
Regional ]'ransport
Authority.
The respondent submitted an application to the Regional Transport
~uthority for the grant of a stage carriage .p~rmit on nn intcr~rcgio~i::il and.
rnter-state route.
The Regional Transport Authority declined to consider
the application, because, bv a resolution of the State Transport Authority,
the State Transport Authority took over the functions of the Regional Trans-
port Authority with regard to inter-state routes.
Jn a writ petition filed
by the respondent the High Court hel<l, (1) that under s. 44(3) (b) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the State Transport Authoritv was entitled
to perform the duties of a Regional Trz.1sport Authority in only two
cases, namely, (a) where there is no Regional Transport Authority in
a region and the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform :he
duties of the Regional Transport Authoritv and (b) when the Regional
Transport Authority is functioning only in respect of inter-regional routes
and on the request of the Regional rfransport Authority; and (2)
that
the resolution of the State Transport Avthority taking over the furictio~""ts
of the Regional Transport. Authority \VJ.s confrary to the direction giv\::11
by the State under s. 43 the High Court therefore, directed the Rc\'.!ion~l
Transport Authority to dispose o-f the application of the respondent.-
Dismissing the appeal to th!s Court,
HELD: (I) Updcr s. 44(3)(b) the State Transport Authority is en·
titled to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority in three
contingencies, namely (a) where there is no Regional Transport Authority
functioning, (b) when the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform
the <lutics of the Regional Transport Authority in respect of any route
common to t'\'O or more regions, and (c) \Vhere
the
State rfransport
Authority is requested by the Regional "fran:~1~ort Allthoritv to perform
those duties in respect of an inter-regional route. f845H-846A]
There is no 1i111itation in the case of the first continµcncy.
When a
Regional Transport Authority is not 'functioning,
the
State
Transport
Authority shall perform the duties of a Regional Tran,port Authority. The
provisions of lhe Act with regard to lssue of permits are i;i the publi:::
interest, and it will ]cad to great public inconvenience if in th';! ah'.;cnce
0f the Regional Transport Authority the public is left entirely to the mercy
of the State Transport Authority \vhether it will exercise its discretion to
pcr'form the duties of the Regional rrrnnsport .l\uthority or not. The other
two contingencies ho\vever are limited in their ·scope.
Since the State
Transport Authority is for the whole State and has wider jmisdiction than
the sep·a,rate regional authorities it n1ay in a fit case take over the functions
of the Regional Transport Authority \Vith regard to any route common to
hvo or more region"; and similarly, \Vhen a request is made by the ~cgional
Transoort Authority the State Transport Authority would be entitled t~
perform the duties of the Regional Transport. Auth~rity in resP<;ct. of an
inter~regional route.
Since two type.;; of cont1ngenc1cs---one unhm1ted tl\
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R
scope and .the other limited-are combined in one place the word "and'
has been used after the first oontingency. The High Court's construction
Of the section that 'then~ are only two contingencies as mentioned by it
is erroneous. r846C-}{; 847A-C]
. Povnam Chond v. State of Rajasthan, I.LR. 11 Raj. 1031, approved,
(2) But this power under cl. (b) c,ould only be discharged by the State
Transp>Jft Authority, .('i) subject to any directions given to it under s. 43
of the Act by the State Government; and (ii) save as otherwise expressly
prolided by or under the Act .. f,8470-E]
(a) It cannot be contended that since the Regionat Transport Au tho .
. 'rilY. is a separate authority on which duties referred to in cl, (b) have
been imposed by other piovisions of the Act there is express provision by
l)f ·under the Act and that therefore the State Transport Authority would
be· disentitled ·to take over these functions. If the expression is so construed
the very objecExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.