THE MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAIPUR

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 786 · Decided: 15-04-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 
CORPORATION 
v. 
A 
mE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUmORITY, RAIPUR 
B 
April 15, 1965 
IP. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH 
AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, (4 of 1939), s. 62--Scope of. 
c 
In February, 1963, the first respondent, Regional Transport Autho-
rity, granted a permit to the third respondent for running a town 
bus service in Raipur, but as the latter was unable to pUt the ser-
vice into operation, the permit was revoked in September,· 1964. 
Thereafter, the first respondent granted a temporary permit to the 
appellant for a period of two months and in November, 1964 pending D 
the grant of a permit for permanent regular operations, granted a 
:;econd temporary permit to the appellant for four months. 
The third respondent thereupon filed a petition in the High 
Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent 
granting a temporary permit to the appellant on the ground, inter 
atia, that such grant was in violation of s. 62 of the Motor Vehicles E 
Act. The High Court allowed the petition, being of the view that a 
temporary permit could not be granted for any route when there 
was a permanent need for providing transport facilities on that route 
and it had been decided to invite applications for that purpose. In 
the appeal before this Court, it was a1so contended that the provision 
in s. 62 that a temporary permit could be granted for a period not "in 
any case" to exceed four months meant that under no circumstances 
could a temporary permit be granted on any route for more than a I' 
total period of four months. 
On the other hand, it was the appellant's contention that in the 
-circumstances of the case~ there was a "particular temporary need" 
within the meaning of s. 62(c) and the High Court was in error in 
taking the view that whenever there was a permanent need, there 
could be no temporary need. 
•· · 
G 
HELD: (i) The Regional Transport Authority was right as a 
matter of law in granting a temporary permit to the appellant under 
s. 62(c) of the Act in the circumstances of the case. [WOC] 
After the regular permit granted to the third respondent was 
<:ancelled, in view of a . shortage of transport vehicles on the route 
the Regional Transport Authority thought it fit to provide for this H 
temporary need until permanent regular operations could be intro-
duced in accordance with the procedure prescribed in s. 57. There 
was no reason why the clause "to meet a particular temporary need" 
should be given any special or restricted meaning. There is no anti-
thesis between a particular temporary need and a permanent need 
and it is manifest that these two kinds of need may co-exist on a 
particular ro11te. [789 G-HJ 
786 
. ' 
r 
' 
A 
B 
'c 
D 
.E 
M.P. TRANSPORT CORP. v. R"'.A. (Ramaswami, J.) 
787 
<ii) The words "in any case" in s. 62 do not· mean "in any cir-
cumstance". The section means that at any one time the Transport 
Authority is not permitted to issue to any person a temporary per-
mit for a period exceeding 4 months; but if the temporary need per· 
sists then, except where an abuse of the power is shown, it would 
be permissible to grant a second temporary per.nm· to .meet the tem-
poracy need. 
[790 D-F) 
· 
Jairam Dass v. Regional Transport Authority, I.L.R. 1956 Rajas-
than 1053; Chandi Praood Mahajan v. The Regional Transport Autho-
rity, Gauhati, I.L.R., 1952, Assam 9, approved. 
Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd. v. The Road Traffic Board, Madras, 
A.I.R., 1948 Madras 400, Balagangadharan v. Regional Transport 
Board, Quilon, A.LR., 1958, Kerala 144, Shah Transport Co., Chhind-
wara v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, A.LR., 1952 Nagpur 363, Mal-
lasattawa v. The Chairman, Regiona1l Transport Authority, Banga-
lore, A.LR., 1959, Mysore 114, disapproved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 243 of 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 13, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. 
Petition No. 624 of 1964. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, and ·1. N. Shroff, for the 
appellant. 
A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent No. 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. This appeal raises an important question 
as to the scope and interpretation of s. 62(c) of the Motor Vehicles 
F 
Act and as to whether the appellant-The Madhya Pradesh State 
Road Transport Corporation-was entitle:l, in the circumstances 
of the case, to the grant

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