LexSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS. ETC. SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 [DR. AS. ANAND AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1939/U.P. State Road Transport Services (Developmelll) Rules, 1974: Ss. 58(2)(a), 68-F(1)(E)!R. 10(4)-Notified routeJ~Application by U.P. State Road Tramp011 C01poration for Stage Caniage pennit-Renewal of-Held, pemzit remains valid till the scheme remains in force-17zere is 110 need for renewal of the existing pe1111it dwing the peliod when the scheme remains inf orce. A B c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4637 of D 1998 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.91 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 10064 of 1988. Pramod Swamp for the Appellant. R.C. Verma, R.B. Misra, Kamlendra Misra, Sunil K. Jain and Vijay Hansaria for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : CA.No.4637 of 1998 (@ SLP(C) No. 13937/92) Leave granted. The short question requiring our consideration is : whether the U .P. E F State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter the 'Corporation') is re- G quired to renew the permits obtained by it to ply its vehicles on a notified route during the subsistence. of a scheme ? The High Court has answered the question in the affirmative. In short, the facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Gorakhpur H ' 301 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A requested the Regional Transport Authorities for issuance of permits for routes covered by a scheme reserved for exclusive operation by the Cor- poration. In response to the Regional Manager's letter, he was informed that according to the provisions of Section 58(2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter the 'Act') permits could be issued for a maximum B period of three years and were thereafter required to be renewed. The appellants were informed that on payment of permit fee as well as the prescribed fee under Rule 55 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') the permit issued to the Corporation should be got renewed. The appellants questioned the directions issued by the authorities by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court C vide its judgment dated 25.1.1991 allowed the writ petition partially. It was held that the Corporation was required to apply for renewal of the permit under section 68-F(l)(E) of the Act for the period prescribed under sub-section 58(2)(a) if the Act read with the relevant rules and on making such an application, permit issued to the Corporation would be renewed. D The High Court did notice that Rule 10( 4) of the Rules lays down that a permit issued to the Corporation is to remain valid till the scheme remains in force, but came to the conclusion that such a Rule could not override or be inconsistent with the provisions of section 58(2)(a) of the Act and, therefore, held that notwithstanding Rule 10( 4) of the Rules, renewal of the permit was essential to make it valid for the renewed period to ply the E vehicles by the Corporation. This appeal by special leave calls in question that judgment and order of the High Court. F We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. Chapter IV of the Act deals with control of transport vehicles including the provisions for issuance of permits and the manner of renewal of tbe same. This Chapter, however, is general in nature and deals with 11011-1;otified routes. Chapter IV-A of the Act on the other hand exclusively contains special provisions relating to the State Transport Undertakings G and concerns itself with notified routes. This chapter was inserted hy Act 100 of 1956 w.e.f. 16.2.1967. Section 68-B of the Act which occurs in Chapter IV-A reads.: "68-B Chapter IV-A to override Chapter IV and other laws - The H provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders made there- - U.P. S.R.T.C. v. REGIONAL TPT. AUTHORITY 303 under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent A therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." A bare reading of section 68-B (supra), thus, shows that Chapter III A of the Act has an overriding effect notwithstanding anything contained in any B other law for the time being in force including Chapter IV of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.