Case: Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service,Moudhapara Vs. The Regional Transport Authority,Raipur And Another

1. On August 7, 1963 the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur granted to the Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, (hereinafter called the appellant), renewal of a stage carriage permit for an inter-regional route-Saraipalli to Sarangarh - in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The permit was valid upto August 5, 1963 and by the order of renewal, dated August 7, 1963 the permit was renewed for a period of three years. On September 13, 1963 the appellant applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur for renewal of the grant of counter-signature on the renewed permit. Respondent No. 2 objected to the renewal of the grant of counter-signature on the ground that the application of the appellant dated September 13, 1963 was barred by time. The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, held that the application for renewal of the grant of counter-signature was not made within the time prescribed by R. 62 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules but it took the view that the application for renewal had been filed within six weeks of the date of the passing of the order of renewal of the permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur and, therefor, the application for the renewal of the grant of counter-signature could not be rejected on the ground that it was time barred. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur accordingly granted the renewal of the counter-signature on the permit by its order, dated February 24, 1964. Respondent No. 2 thereafter applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ quashing the order, dated February 24, 1864 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur. The High Court took the view that an application for renewal of the grant of counter-signature must be made within the period prescribed by S. 58 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the appellant having failed to apply within that period, the application of the appellant for renewal of the counter-signature on the permit was barred and the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur had no jurisdiction to countersign the permit renewed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. The High Court accordingly quashed the order, dated February 24, 1964 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur. This appeal is brought by the appellant with a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

Court's reasoning:
5. We do not think it is necessary to express any opinion on the contentions advanced by the parties on this aspect of the case, for we are of the view that on a proper construction of the rules made by the State Government in regard to the grant of permits and Counter-signatures of inter-regional permits the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur was not competent to renew thecountersignature on the permitfor the inter-regional route granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur in the present case. Underthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 were made by the appropriate authority and it is the admitted position that these rules were at the material time in operation in the two regions - Bilaspur and Raipur in the State of Madhya Pradesh with which we are concerned. By R. 61 it isApplication for the renewal of a permit shall be made, in writing to the Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued not less than two months, in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carriers permit, and not less than one month in other cases, before the expiry of the permit, and shall be accompanied by Part A of the permit. The application shall state the period for which the renewal is desired and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed in rule 55.(b) The Regional Transport Authority renewing a permit shall call upon the holder to produce Part B or Parts A, B thereof, as the case may be, and shall endorse Parts A and B accordingly and shall return them to theR. 62, Cl. (a) it isto the provisions of R. 63, application for the renewal of a countersignature on a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority concerned and within the appropriate periods prescribed by Rule 61 and shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (b), be accompanied by Part A of the permit. The application shall set forth the period for which the renewal of the countersignature isR. 63, Cl. (a) it isauthority by which a permit is renewed may, unless any authority by which the permit has been countersigned (with effect not terminating before the date of expiry of the permit) has by general or special order otherwise directed, likewise renew any countersignature 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 such61 substantially incorporates the provisions of sub-section (2) of S. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the proviso thereto, and makes certain incidental provisions. Clause (a) of R. 62 provides that the application or renewal of counter signature of a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority concerned and within the appropriate period prescribed by R. 61 but the provisions of R. 62(a) are subject to the provisions of R. 63(a) which confers power upon the Authority which grants renewal of inter-regional permit under the first proviso inter-regional permit under the first proviso to S. 45 to countersign 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 countersign the permit is entrusted to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the remaining part of the route is situate, the effect of R. 63 is that the power to countersign the permit is vested in the Authority which grants the renewal of the permit. The Legislature has by providing in the opening part of sub-section (1) of S. 63 "except as may be otherwise prescribed" made the provision subject to the rules framed by the State Government under S. 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The provisions of R. 63, therefore, must supersede the direction contained in S. 63(1) of the statute and the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur was competent in the present case to grant countersignature of the permit even in so far as it related to the Raipur region. On behalf of the appellant attention was drawn to the expression "may" in R. 63. But in the context and the language of the rule the word "may" though permissive in form must be held to be obligatory. Under R. 63 the power to grant renewal of thecountersignature on thein the present case is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. The exercise of such power of renewal depends not upon the direction of the authority but upon the proof of the particular case out of which such power arises. "Enabling words are construed as compulsory whenever the object of the power is to effectuate a legal right".(See Julius v. Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5 AC 214   at p. 244).If the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur had power to renew thecountersignature on theunder R. 63, it must be held that the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur had no such power under S. 62 because the latter rule is expressly made subject to the provisions of R. 63, and the power granted to the Regional Transport Authority under R. 62 is taken away by the provisions of R. 63.It follows, therefore, that the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur was not competent to renew thecountersignature on thepermit in thepresent case and the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur was alone competent to renew the countersignature of the permit. We accordingly hold that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated February 24, 1964 granting countersignature of the permit was illegal and ultra vires and was rightly quashed by the High Court by its order dated November 13, 1964.6. We, therefore, confirm the order of the High Court, but for different reasons,.We, however, desire to make it clear that our order does not affect the validity of the permit granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur in so far as it relates to the route within the limits of Bilaspur region. That is the ratio of decision of this Court in Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co., Nowgaon v. Behari Lal Chaurasia, C. A. No. 51 of 1965, dated 17-8-1965; (AIR 1966 SC 455  ) in which it was pointed out that inter-regional permit when granted is valid for the region over which the authority granting the permit has jurisdiction even though it is not countersigned by the proper Regional Transport Authority with regard to the portion of the route outside that region.