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

1. In 1957 the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur granted to Messrs Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company, Nowgaon-hereinafter called the appellant - a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to ply stage carriages on an interregional route-Jabalpur to Chattarpur-in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the permit was counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, within whose jurisdiction a part of the route lay. The permit was renewed in 1960 for a period of three years expiring on August 9, 1963 by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, and it was counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. On June 7, 1963 the appellant applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, for renewal of the permit, and order, dated December 6, 1963 the permit was renewed for the period ending February 9, 1966. By its application, dated December 7, 1963 the appellant requested the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, to counter-sign the permit so renewed. This application was published as required by S. 57 read with S. 63 (3) of the Act on January 2, 1964. Three motor transport operators, amongst whom was the first respondent Behari Lal Chaurasia, objected to the grant of counter-signature to the permit, inter alia, on the ground that the application was barred by the law of limitation prescribed by S. 58 (2) proviso one, and the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, had no power to grant counter-signature of renewal after the expiry of that period. The Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, overruled the objection, and by order, dated March 17, 1964 granted counter-signature of the permit2. The first respondent then applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a writ quashing the order, dated March 17, 1964 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. In the view of the High Court an application for renewal of the permit and an application for renewal of counter-signature must be made within the period prescribed by S. 58 (2) of the Act, and the appellant having failed to apply within that period, the application of the appellant for renewal of the counter-signature was barred and the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, had no jurisdiction to counter-sign the permit renewed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur. The High Court accordingly quashed the order, dated March 17, 1964. With certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution, the appellant has appealed to this Court.

Court's reasoning:
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.