Civil Appeal No 1153 of 1975
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 29th November 1974 of the Mysore High Court at Bangalore Writ Petition No 117 of 1973
section V Gupte K R Nagaraja for the Appellant
Shyamla Pappu Mrs for Respondent No 3
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gupta J
on the application of the appellant the Regional Transport Authority Mandya granted him
a contract carriage permit on February 8 1972 valid for the entire State of Karnataka
The grant was cancelled by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal by its order dated August 19 1972 on appeal preferred by the third respondent Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka at Ban galore challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal
The High Court dismissed the petition by its order dated November 29 1 974 agreeing with the Appellate Tribunal that the Regional Transport Authority Mandya had no jurisdiction to grant permits valid throughout the State of Karnataka in view of the first proviso to sub section 1 of section 45 of the hereinafter referred to as the Act
The correctness of that decision is questioned by the appellant in this appeal by special leave
Section 451 with its first proviso which is the only part of the section relevant for the present purpose is in these terms General provision as to applications for permits
30 45 1 Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles Provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles  As its marginal note indicates section contains a general provision regulating applications for permits
The proviso quoted above lays down that where the applicant for a permit proposes to use his vehicle in two or more regions in the same State the application must be made to the Regional Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the major portion of the proposed route or area lies
The appellant had asked for a contract carriage permit that would be valid throughout the State of Karnataka which meant that he proposed to use his vehicle in all the different regions lying in the State
The second proviso to section 441 of the Act lays down that the area specified as the region of a Regional Transport Authority shall not be less than an entire district or the whole area of a Presidency town
In the State of Karnataka there are 19 Regional Transport Authorities one for each district in the State
In terms of the first proviso to section 45 1 an application for an inter regional permit that the appellant was asking for had to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region that included the major portion of the proposed area
The question debated before the appellate tribunal and the High Court was whether the area lying within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority Mandya was larger than the area within the region of any other Regional Transport Authority in the State and in that context the meaning of the term area  in the first proviso to section 45 1 arose for consideration
According to the applicant for the permit area  in section 45 meant the extent of motorable tract in the region and the Regional Transport Authority Mandya agreeing with this interpretation of the word area  found that the Mandya Region has more motorable roads than any other district in the State
The appellate tribunal and the High Court both refused to accept this meaning of area  which they held to mean plain geographical area and as the Regional Transport Authority Mandya was admittedly not the largest district in that State the High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the decision of the appellate tribunal that the grant of permit was without jurisdiction
Before proceeding to consider the merits of the rival contentions as to the meaning of the word area  in the first proviso to section 451 it would be helpful to refer to certain other provisions of the Act which seem to be relevant in this context
The appellant had asked for a contract carriage permit
Section 23 defies a contract carriage as a motor vehicle which carries passengers for hire or reward under a contract for the use of the vehicles as a whole either on a time basis or 31 from one point to another and in both cases without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract
A motor vehicle is defined in section 218 as a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads 
Section 49 lays down the particulars that an application for a contract carriage permit shall contain and the area  for which the permit is required is one of the matters that the application must state
The word route which has been used in association with area  in section 451 is defined by section 228A as a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another Section 21 defines area  as follows  area in relation to any provision of this Act means such area as the State Government may having regard to the requirements of that provision specify by notification in the official Gazette The terms and expressions defined in section 2 will apply only if there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context as the opening words of the section indicate
The first proviso to section 45 1 speaks of the route or area proposed in an application for a permit and as such there can be no question here of the State Government specifying the area
Clearly the definition of area in section 21 has no relevance in this context
The question therefore remains to be answered whether area in section 451 has been used in the wider sense of geographical area or it means only the area of motorable roads  The section uses both the words route  and area  whichever is applicable in a given case
A route as defined is a line of travel between two termini on a highway but the idea of a route as a notional line that the definition suggests has not been consistently maintained in the Act
In Dosa Satyanarayanamurty etc
vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn
1 this Court observed There is no inherent in consistency between an area and a route
The proposed route is also an area limited to the route proposed
 A similar observation was made in CPC Motor Service Mysore vs The State of Mysore2 that in the scheme of the Act by the word route is meant not only the notional line but also the actual road over which the omnibuses run
Of course it would not be correct to say that the Act recognizes no distinction between route  and area 
A route may mean not only the notional line of travel between one terminus and another but also the area of the road over which the motor vehicles ply yet the two terms are not interchangeable as pointed out in CP Sikh Regular Motor Service etc
vs The State of Maharashtra3 a route is an area plus something more
This something is the notional line of travel between two termini which distinguishes a route  from an area simpliciter
The first proviso to section 451 speaks of route or area apparently making a distinction between them to cover applications relatable to either
A contract carriage does not ply along a fixed route or routes but over an area which is why an application for a contract carriage permit has to contain a statement as to the proposed area
1 644
2 1962 Supp
1 SCR 717 725
3  32 All the decisions to which we have referred above have taken the view that by area is meant the road the physical tract over which the motor vehicles ply without reference to any notional line of travel
Of course this meaning was given to the word area  in the context of the provisions of the Act considered in these cases in none of which section 45 came up for consideration
We do not however find any reason to think that area  in section 45  1  has a different connotation
Except that the territorial jurisdiction of the regional transport authorities is fixed in terms of geographical area districtwise in the State of Karnataka area  in that wider sense is irrelevant to the purposes of the Act
Counsel for the respondent Mysore State Road Transport Corporation Bangalore built an argument on the provisions of section 12 of the Act that the meaning of area  is not restricted only to the area of motorable roads in a region
Section 42 prohibits the use of a transport vehicle in any public place except in accordance with the conditions of a valid permit
A transport vehicle includes a motor vehicle used for the carriage of passengers section 233 and section 225
Public place has been defined by section 224 of the Act as road street way or other place whether a thoroughfare or not to which the public have a right of access and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage
lt was argued that a contract carriage which does not ply on a fixed route could be used in any public place which need not necessarily be a road this according to counsel indicated that the word area occurring in section 451 meant geographical area and not motorable roads only
We do not find it possible to accept this contention
Assuming that a contract carriage could be used in places which are not really roads the fact remains that a contract carriage being a motor vehicle is intended for use upon roads and any casual use of it in places other than roads is not decisive on the interpretation of the word area
The prohibition against the use of transport vehicles in public places which are not roads serves to repel a possible claim that for using a motor vehicle in places which cannot be called roads no permit was necessary
We hold therefore that the word area in the first proviso to section 451 of the Act means the area of motorable roads within the territorial jurisdiction of a regional transport authority
The Regional Transport Authority Mandya held that it had within its jurisdiction the largest area of motorable roads in the State of Karnataka and this finding has not been disturbed by the appellate tribunal
The appellate tribunal thought that the expression motorable roads was vague as the area comprising of motorable roads would be changing from time to time but the jurisdiction of a regional transport authority to grant an inter regional permit depends on the existing area of motorable roads when an application for a permit is made
In the course of arguments before us doubts were expressed on the reasonableness of a provision which requires an application for an inter regional permit to be made to the regional transport authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies when section 63 of the Act provides elaborate checks and lays 33 down conditions for the validation of permits for use outside the region in which it has been granted
It was submitted that in view of the provisions of section 63 there was no point in insisting on the application being made to the Regional Transport Authority of any particular region
We see the logic of this submission but this is a matter of policy on which the court has no say
However the policy itself does not appear to have been stated very clearly
On the provisions as they are it is difficult to say that the construction put forward on behalf of the third respondent is altogether implausible
It is also true that there can be practical difficulties whichever interpretation was adopted
This being the position we should have thought that instead of leaving the law in such a slippery state the State should clarify it by appropriate legislation so that the law may be clear and easily ascertainable by the concerned section of the public
The appeal is allowed and the impugned order including the order of the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal is set aside
We make it clear that all we have decided in this case is that the Regional Transport Authority Mandya had jurisdiction to issue the permit to the appellant whether the permit satisfies the other conditions of a valid inter regional permit did not arise for consideration in this appeal In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
Section 451 of the  a general provision regulating applications for inter regional route permits within a State requires an application to be made to the appropriate Regional Transport Authority mentioned in the proviso thereto namely either to the Regional Transport Authority of tho region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies or to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions are approximately equal
The appellant applied for a contract carriage permit that would be valid throughout the State of Karnataka which meant that he proposed to use his vehicle in all the nineteen regions to the Regional Transport Authority Mandya who granted him on 8 2 1972 a contract carriage permit valid for the entire State of Karnataka
The permit was granted as Mandya region has more motorable roads than any other district in the State
On appeal preferred by the State Road Transport Corporation taking the view that geographically Mandya region was smaller in area and as such the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority Mandya was ousted the permit granted to the appellant was cancelled by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by its Order dated 19 8 1972 resulting in a writ Proceedings before the Karnataka High Court which was dismissed
On appeal by Special Leave the Court  HELD 1 The word route which has been used in association with area specifically notified by the State Government
However the terms and a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another
Section 21 defines area as area specifically notified by the State Government
However the terms and expressions defined in section 2 will apply only if there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context
Tho first proviso to section 451 speaks of the route or area proposed in an application for a permit and as such there can be no question of the State Government specifying the area
The definition of area in section 21 has therefore no relevance in this context
31B D 2 section 45 uses both the words route and area whichever is applicable in a given case
A route as defined is a line of travel between two termini on a highway but the idea of a route as a notional line that the definition suggests has not been consistently maintained in the Act
31D E 3 A route may mean not only the notional line of travel between one terminus and another but also the area of the route over which the motor vehicles ply yet the two terms are not interchangeable
A route is an area plus some thing more This something is the notional line of travel between the two termini which distinguishes a route from an area simpliciter
The first proviso to section 451 speaks of route or area apparently making a distinction between 29 them to cover applications relatable to either
A contract carriage does not ply along a fixed route or routes but over an area which is why an application for a contract carriage permit has to contain a statement as to the pro posed area
31G H Dosa Satyanarayanamurty etc
vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn 644
C P C Motor Service Mysore vs The State of Mysore 1962Supp
1 SCR 717 725
C P Sikh Regular Motor Service etc
vs The State of Maharashtra 1975 2 SCR 10 followed
4The word area in the first proviso to section 451 of the Act means the area of motorable roads within the territorial jurisdiction of a regional transport authority
Except that the territorial jurisdiction of the regional transport authority is fixed in terms of geographical area district wise in the State of Karnataka area in that wider sense is irrelevant to the purpose of the Act
32 B F 5 The jurisdiction of a regional transport authority to grant an inter regional permit depends on the existing areas of motorable roads when an application for a permit is made
32 G On the question of the reasonableness of a provision which requires an application for an inter regional permit to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region where the major portion of the proposed route or area lies the Court observed that this was a matter of policy but added that the policy has not been stated very clearly and that instead of leaving the law in such a slippery state the State should clarify it by appropriate legislation so that the law may be clear and easily ascertainable by the concerned section of the public