Case: Ram Vilas Service Limited, Kumbakonam Vs. M/s. Raman &amp; Raman Private Limited &amp; Another

2. On December 9, 1965, the application of M/s. Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. Kumbakonam for variation of the route Sirkali to Kumbakonam was notified under Section 57 (3) ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. M/s. Raman and Raman (P) Ltd., among others, filed objections and after hearing the objections, by order dated March 28, 1966, the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, granted the application as, according to it, the variation applied for was in the interest of the travelling public. The distance covered by the variation extended beyond 24 kilometers. M/s. Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority.

Court's reasoning:
But we are unable to read section 48 in this sense. Section 48 (3) clearly enables the Regional Transport Authority to attach to the permit any or one of the twentyone conditions. It may in a particular case put one or two or more of the conditions or it may put all the conditions. It seems to be common ground that if any of the first twenty conditions in Section 48 (3) is not attached to a permit it will not have effect. What makes condition (xxi) different is hard to appreciate. If condition (xxi) as amended is not attached to a permit it is difficult to see how the Regional Transport Authority can derive any power from the existence of a Section 48 (3) (xxi) in the Act. Section 5 (1) of Act III of 1964 makes the route or routes or the area specified in every stage carriage permit granted before the commencement of the Amending Act a condition attached to such permit under sub-section (3) of section 48 of the principal Act it does not say that Section 48 (3) (xxi) shall be deemed to be a condition attached to every such permit.It was argued before us that the history of legislation supports the interpretation placed by the High Court but, in our view, the Act as it stands amended by Act III of 1964 is quite clear and it is not necessary to go into the history of the legislation.8. It seems to us that the High Court erred in holding that Section 48 (3) (xxi) of the Act as amended, by itself gave power to the Regional Transport Authority to vary the route within certain limits. This power, in our view, would be exercisable only if a condition to that effect is out in the permit.In the case of the appellant we saw the permit and what it contained was a condition similar to the condition mentioned in Section 48 (3) (xxi) before its amendment by Act III of 1964. Therefore, for the purpose of this appeal we must treat S. 48 (3) (xxi), as amended, as non-existent. If S. 48 (3) (xxi) as amended, is treated as non-existent, then there can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that no limitation had been placed on the powers of the Regional Transport Authority in respect of the grant of applications for variation of the route.The order of the Regional Transport Authority cannot therefore, be challenged as being beyond itsseems to us that as the Act stands at present, Rule 208 does confer power on a transport authority to vary all kinds of permits or conditions attached therein. This power is exercised on an application made in writing by the holder of any permit.10. It follows from the above reasoning that the Regional Transport Authority had the authority under Rule 208 to vary the permit and nothing contained in Section 48 (3) (xxi) limited its power in respect of the distance covered by the variation in this case.11. We may mention that it was argued before us that Section 57 (8) is not merely procedural but also implies a power to receive applications and vary the conditions in a permit. This may be so, but it is not necessary to decide in this case because in Madras Rule 208 clearly confers power on the Transport Authority to vary the conditions of the permit.