Case: M/S. Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company, Nowgaon Vs. Behari Lal Chiaurasia And Another

in R. 61 and shall, subject to the provisions of sub-r. (b), be accompanied by Part A of the permit. The application shall set forth the period for which the renewal of the counter-signature is required." Rule 63, by Cl. (a), provided:"The authority by which a permit is renewed may, unless any authority by which the permit has been counter-signed (with effect not terminating before the date of expiry of the permit) has by general or special order otherwise directed, likewise renew any counter-signature of the permit (by endorsement of the permit in the manner set forth in the appropriate Form) and shall, in such case, intimate the renewal to such authority." 7. Rule 61 substantially incorporates the provisions of sub-s. (2) of S. 58, and the proviso thereto, and makes certain incidental provisions. By Cl. (a) of R. 62 it is provided that the application for renewal of counter-signature has to be made within the period prescribed in R. 61, i.e., it has to be made not less than two months before the expiry of a stage carriage permit or a public carriers permit. 8. By R. 63, power is conferred upon the Authority which grants an inter-regional permit under the first proviso to S. 45, (unless by any general or special order the other Authority has directed otherwise)to counter-sign the permit so as to make it valid for the other region covered by the route. Therefore, even though by S. 63 the power to counter-sign the permit is entrusted to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the remaining part of the route is situate, by R. 63 the power to counter-sign may also be exercised by the Authority who grants the original permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, was, therefore, competent to grant renewal of the permit and was also competent by virtue of R. 63 to counter-sign the permit so as to make it valid even for that part of the route which lay in the Rewa region. 9. The Legislature has by providing in the opening part of sub-s. (1) "Except as may by otherwise prescribed" made the provision subject to the rules framed under S. 68, and a rule conferring authority to counter-sign the permit in so far as it relates to another region upon the Authority who issues the permit is made. The validity of a section which is made subject to the provisions of the rules to be framed by a piece of delegated legislation is not challenged before us. Rule 63 must, therefore prevail over the direction of the statute. There is no substance in the contention raised by counsel for the appellant that the State Government had no power to frame R. 63. Power to frame rules for carrying into effect the provisions of Ch. IV is expressly granted to the State Government by S. 66, and the exercise of that power, if it be utilised for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, is not subject to any other implied limitations. 10. In the present case an application for counter-signature of renewal of the permit was made to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, and it was rejected. It is unfortunate that the application and the reasons in support of the order of the Authority are not on the record of the case. But it appears clear from the following recital in the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, that the application for countersignature was made to the Authority at Jabalpur and it was rejected:"Need for moving this authority for getting the counter-signature renewed certainly arose when the R. T. A., Jabalpur, declined to sanction the renewal of counter-signature." 11. Truth of this recital is accepted by counsel at the Bar.The result, therefore, is that an application was made under S. 63 read with S. 58 (2) to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, for renewal of the permit and also for counter-signature of the renewal of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, granted renewal of the permit, but declined to grant countersignature of the permit, insofar as it related to the Rewa region. Under S. 63 a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region is not valid in any other region, unless the permit has been counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. The clearest implication of this provision is that even an inter-regional permit when granted is valid for the region over which the Authority granting the permit has jurisdiction, and when it is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region, the permit becomes valid for the entire route. We are unable to agree with counsel for the respondent that the permit has no validity whatever until it is counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region. 12. The Regional Transport Authority. Jabalpur, renewed the permit for the Jabalpur region, but declined to counter-sign the permit in exercise of the power conferred by R. 63 framed under S. 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the route within the Rewa region. The conclusion is inevitable that the Authority granted the permit only operative between Jabalpur and the point at which the route entered the Rewa region: in substance, he merely granted a regional permit limited to the route within the Jabalpur region. The permit being a regional permit and not an inter-regional permit, there was no part of the route for which the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, could be counter-signing the permit extend it so as to make it operative within the Rewa region. In any event as one Regional Transport Authority is not competent to sit in judgment over the discretion exercised by any other Regional Transport Authority upon whom the power is conferred in regard to a particular matter under the statute, the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, granting counter-signature in the teeth of the earlier order of the Jabalpur Authority was invalid. 13.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. We do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the contentions advanced by the parties on this part of the case, for, we are of the view that this appeal may be decided on the interpretation of the rules made by the State Government in regard to grant of permits and counter-signature of inter-regional permitsIn the present case an application for counter-signature of renewal of the permit was made to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, and it was rejected. It is unfortunate that the application and the reasons in support of the order of the Authority are not on the record of the case. But it appears clear from the following recital in the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, that the application for countersignature was made to the Authority at Jabalpur and it was rejected:"Need for moving this authority for getting the counter-signature renewed certainly arose when the R. T. A., Jabalpur, declined to sanction the renewal of counter-signature."Truth of this recital is accepted by counsel at the Bar.The result, therefore, is that an application was made under S. 63 read with S. 58 (2) to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, for renewal of the permit and also for counter-signature of the renewal of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, granted renewal of the permit, but declined to grant countersignature of the permit, insofar as it related to the Rewa region. Under S. 63 a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region is not valid in any other region, unless the permit has been counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. The clearest implication of this provision is that even an inter-regional permit when granted is valid for the region over which the Authority granting the permit has jurisdiction, and when it is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region, the permit becomes valid for the entire route. We are unable to agree with counsel for the respondent that the permit has no validity whatever until it is counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of the other regionThe conclusion is inevitable that the Authority granted the permit only operative between Jabalpur and the point at which the route entered the Rewa region: in substance, he merely granted a regional permit limited to the route within the Jabalpur region. The permit being a regional permit and not an inter-regional permit, there was no part of the route for which the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, could be counter-signing the permit extend it so as to make it operative within the Rewa region. In any event as one Regional Transport Authority is not competent to sit in judgment over the discretion exercised by any other Regional Transport Authority upon whom the power is conferred in regard to a particular matter under the statute, the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, granting counter-signature in the teeth of the earlier order of the Jabalpur Authority was invalid.