Y. MAHABOOB SHERIFF AND OTHERS versus MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 06-11-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'959 
Shrinivasrt Reddy 
' 
v. 
The State of 
Mysore 
Kapur]. 
x959 
Nov~mber 6 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)1 
to the Department. We order parties to bear their 
own costs of this petition taking into account that 
Petition No. 117 of 1959 filed by the petitioners with 
respect to the validity of the scheme has been with-
drawn by them at a late stage and we have directed 
parties to bear their own costs of that petition also. 
Y. MAHABOOB SHERIFF AND OTHERS 
v. 
MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY 
AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, 
K. N. WANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Motor vehicles-Stage carriage per1nit-Period of renrwal-
Duty of Transport Authority-Motor Vehicles Act, I939 (IV of 
I939), as amended by Act IOO of I956, s. 58. 
Suh-section (r)(a) of s. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, 
provides,-
" A stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit other 
than a temporary permit issued under s. 62 shall be effective 
without rene\\1al for such period not less than three years and 
not more than five years, as the Regional Transport Authority 
may specify in the permit. " 
Sub-section (2) provides,-
" A permit may be renewed on an application made and dis· 
posed of as if it were an application for a permit." 
Provided that ......................... " 
~ 
The stage carriage permits of the petitioners were ending on 
March 31, 1958. and they applied to the Regional Transport 
Authority, Bangalore. for a renewal of them. 
The Tran,port 
Department of the Mysore State Government opposed such 
renewal and applied that fresh permits for the routes in question 
might be granted to it as the State Government int:ended to 
nationalise the transport services. 
The Authority, however, dis-
missed the applications of both the contending parties, but, on 
appeal, its orders were set aside and the ma1ter was remanded 
for a fresh decision. 
A scheme under s. 68C of Ch. IVA of the 
Act was in the meantime published and approved by the State 
Government, which was later on quashed qy the High Court. at 
the instance of the petitiJners. 
The Authority passed orders 
renewil)g the permits of the petitioners for a period of one year 
from April I, 1958, to March 31, 1959· Appeals against the said 
orders having proved abortive the petitioners appiicd to the 
' 
• 
.. 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
147 
High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and 
x959 
those applications were summarily dismissed and certificates to 
appeal to this Court refused. The petitioners thereupon applied Mahaboob Sheriff 
to this Court under Art. 32 of the S::onstitution. The question 
v. 
for determination was whether on a proper construction of 
Mysore State 
• sub-s. (1)(a) and, sub-s. (2) of s. 58 of the Act, read together, the Transport Authority 
period of renewal was to be the same as provided for the grant 
of permits under the former and the Authority in renewing a 
permit was bound to specify the period of such renewal. It was 
contended on behalf of the Department that; even supposing that 
a renewal must be for the same period as provided for the 
original grant, this Court by writ could do no more than quash 
the order made by the Authority, leaving it to decide the ques-
tion of renewal in accordance with the law as laid down by it. 
Held (per Sinha, C.J., Imam, Wanchoo and Das Gupta, JJ.), 
that under s. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, properly· 
construed, the period for which a permit could be renewed under 
sub-s. (2) of that section must be not less than three years and 
' not more than five years as provided for the grant of a permit 
under sub-s. (1)(a) thereof and the Regional Transport Authority, 
in eisercising its discretion to grant a renewal where it chose to 
do so, must specify the. r;eriod of renewal accordingly. 
The words "without renewal" occurring in sub-s. (1)(a) do 
not signify a contrary intention. 
V. C. K. Bus Service Ltd. v. The Regional Transport Authority, 
Coimbatore, [1957] S.C.R. 663, distinguished. 
Since, in the instant case, the intention of the Authority to 
grant renewal was clear, but in doing so it had, under a mis-
apprehension of the law, limited the renewal to one year only, it 
was open to this Court to sever the legal part of its order from 
the illegal and quash the latter. 
R. M. D. Chamarbaughwalla v. The Union of India, [1957] 
S.C.R. 930 and Shewpujanrai Indrasanrai Ltd v. The Collector of 
Customs, [1959] S.C.R. 821, referred to . 
Sin

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