Supreme Court of India
M. DURAISWAMIversusMURUGAN BUS SERVICE & ORS.
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 57
- Decided
- 2 April 1986
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- E S VENKATARAMIAH
Holding
An application for variation of a permit must be made to the Regional Transport Authority that originally granted the permit, even if the extension lies in another region, and that authority must obtain concurrence or countersignature from the other RTA as required by Section 63 and the applicable rules.
Summary
M. Duraiswamy, holder of an inter‑regional stage‑carriage permit issued by the Periyar Regional Transport Authority (RTA), applied to that RTA for a variation that included converting the service to a mofussil one and extending the route into Salem District, which lay wholly in the jurisdiction of the Salem RTA. The Periyar RTA rejected the application, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed it, and the Madras High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, holding that the application should have been made to the Salem RTA. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme and held that Section 45 does not govern variations; an application for variation must be made to the RTA that originally granted the permit, which may then seek concurrence or countersignature from the other RTA under Section 63 and the relevant rules. The High Court’s decision was reversed and the matter remanded for consideration of the remaining issues.
Issues considered
- Whether an application for variation of an inter‑regional permit involving extension of a route lying wholly in another RTA’s jurisdiction should be made to the RTA that originally granted the permit or to the RTA having jurisdiction over the extended area.
- Interpretation of Section 45, Section 57(8), and Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in the context of permit variation.
- Effect of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 163‑A, 163‑B and 208 on the procedure for variation.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 42, s. 45, s. 47, s. 48, s. 57, s. 58, s. 60, s. 63, s. 64
- Tamil Nadu Act No. 3 of 1964 (amendment to Section 57)
- Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940s. 163-A, s. 163-B, s. 208
Subjects
inter‑regional permitvariation of permitroute extensionRegional Transport Authority jurisdictionMotor Vehicles ActSection 45Section 57(8)Section 63Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rulespublic interestcountersignature
Judgment
·-- --------------------------------
< 68
A
M. DURAISWAMY
v.<
- MIJRUGAN BUS SERVICE & ORS.
APRIL 2, 1986
B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND H.P. THAKKAR, JJ.)
_Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ss. 45, 57 and 63 read with
Rules .163-A, 163-B and 208 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules
1940 - Inter-regional permit - Application for variation of
existing permit involving extension of route/area lying in the
c jurisdiction of another RTA - Whether to be made to RTA whichz--
granted permit or to RTA which has jurisdiction over area in
respect of which extension is sought.
' appellant was the holder of an inter-regional permit
The
in respect of a motor vehicle plying on the town service route
D No.IA from Erode· Railway Station to Tiruchengode. The major
portion of the route mentioned in the permit of the appellant·
was lying within the jurisdiction of the Regional T<ansport
Authority of Periyar and the smaller portion lay within the
District of Salem. The appellant applied to the Regional
Transport · Authority of · the District of Periyar which had"'
E issued the aforesaid permit for its variation involving, inter
alia, conversion of the town service into a mofussil service
and extension of route from Tiruchengode to Salem. If the
route in respect of which extension is sought is added then
··. the major portion of the total route would be within the
District of Salem. The Regional Transport _Authority aftery
F notifying the application for variation under section 57(3) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and considering the
representations/objections thereto, rejected the application
on the ground that it was not ' proper for it to grant the
extension since the entire sector in respect of which the
extension was sought lay within Salem District and that the
G- said sector was well-served by stage carriage services.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Transport
Authority at Periyar, the appellant preferred an appeal before
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed
the appeal and granted the variation (including the extension)
H
DURAISWA11Y v. MlJRUGAN BUS SERVICE 69
~applied for with slight modificati~n. Thereupon, some of the
A
objectors to the ·original application for variation filed
befo:e the High Court civil revision petition3 and writ
petition against the order of the Tribunal. The High Court
allowed the petitions holding that the Regional Transport
Authority, Periyar had no jurisdiction to entertain the B
application for variation since the entire route in,respect of
~w'!rlch extension was sought lay within the jurisdiction of the
Salem Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, the
proceeding3 commenced with the said application were liable to
._, be quashed. Hence this appeal by special leave •
Allowing the appeal on the question whether an c
application for the variation of an existing permit involving
lthe extension of the route or the area , specified in the
'permit, where the portion of the route or area in respect of
which extension is sought. lies entirely within the
jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority which had not
granted the permit, should be made to the Regional Transport D
Authority which had granted the permit or to the Regional
Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the route or
area in respect of which extension is sought lies,
HEID: 1. Section 45 of the Act does not apply to the
;.case of a variation of permit and that when a variation of a E
permit is sought the application for the grant of such
variation should be made to the Regional Transport Authority
which has granted the permit even though the entire route or
- area in respect of which extension is sought lies in another
region or a major portion of the entire route (including the
-.:;ew route or area) lies within another region. On such F
application being made it is the duty of the Regional
Transport Authority which has granted_the permit to consider
whether the variation sought should be sanctioned in the
public interest or not. If that Regional Transport Authority
grants variation prayed for, then the concurrence of the other
Regional Transport Authority would have to be sought in G
accordance with either section 63(1) of the Act or where there
re rules made corresponding to rules 163-A, 163-B and 208 of
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, as far as may be, in
accordance with such rules. The decision of the High Court is,
therefore, liable to be reversed. (96 F-H;. 97 A-BJ
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1986] 2 s.c.R.
A , ,
l.(ii) The Judgment of the High Court is entirely basedfr
on . its decision on the question of jurisdiction of the
Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District to entertain
the application. Since there were other contentions raised by
the parties which have not been considered by the High Court,
the case is remanded to the High Court to consider the other
B contentions raised in the case. If the High Court finds it+
necessary to remand the case either to the Tribunal or to the
Regional Transport Authority in the light of the submissions
to _be made before it; it is open to the High Court to remand
the case either to the tribunal or to· the Regional Transport
Authority, as the case may be. (97 B-0)
c
. 2.(i) Section 45(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
provides that every application for a permit shall be made to-Y:-
the Regional Transport Authority_ of the region in which it is
proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles. The first proviso to
sub-s/ (l) of s. 45 of the Act provides that if l.t is proposed
D to use the vehicle or vehicles . in two or m:ire regions lying
within the -same State, the application shall be made to the
Regional Trarisport 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
E the regiOn in Which it ·is proposed to keep the vehicle or,-.\
vehicles. Sub-s. (8) of s. 57 of the Act (as amended by Tamil
Nadu Act No •. 3 of 1964) which deals with the procedure to be
followed by the holder of a permit who seeks such variation,
does not expressly prescribe the Regional Transport Authority
to which an application for the variation of a permit has to ,
F be made where the route or area in respect-of which extension,,.r
is sought lies outside the jurisdiction of the Regional/
Transport Authority· which has granted the permit but within
the jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority. The
said sub-section is silent· about it. It, however, provides
that an application for the variation of a permit which
G involves extension or curtailment of the route or area
specified in the ·permit should be treated as an application
for grant of a new permit. In sub-s. 2 of s. 58 of the Act a
similar language is adopted. That sub-section provides that a
permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of
as i f it were an application for a pend.t. An application for
H renewal of a permit and an application for variation of a
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE 71
A
-< permit have both to be treated as applications for a new
permit and in both the cases the procedure prescribed for the
grant of a new permit has to be followed. The said procedure
includes all the steps mentioned in sub-ss. (3),(4), (5) and
(7) of s. 57 of the Act. The application should be advertised,
representations and objections thereto should be invited and B
the application should be considered at a public hearing at
~ which the applicant and the persons making representations and
objections thereto should be given an opportunity of being
heard either in person or by duly authorised representatives.
- The question, however, remains whether the words 'shall be
treated as an application for t:ie grant of a new permit' in
sub-s. (8) of s.57 of the Act should be read as meaning that c
the Regional Transport Authority which can entertain an
application for variation is the Regional Transport Authority
which can entertain an application for a fresh permit in
respect of a stage carriage for the entire route including the
portion in respect of which extension is sought or that the
application for variation can be made to the Regional D
Transport Authority which had granted the permit, but the
procedure prescribed under s. 57 of the Act for the grant of a
permit should be followed. [78 E-G; 85 F-H; 86 A-Fl
_,,
2.(ii) Sub-section (1) of s. 63 of the Act, however,
provides that except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit E
granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region
shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has
--.- been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that
other region. Rules 163-A, 163-B and 208 of the Tamil Nadu
""'
<
Motor Vehicle Rules framed under the Act provide for an-
~alternative procedure to be followed when the motor vehicle is
F
- to be operated in two or more regions inside the State of
Tamil Nadu as authorised by s. 63(1) of the Act. Rule 163-A
says that the Regional Transport Authority of any one region
may, subject to the proviso to s.45 of the Act, grant a permit
to be valid in any other region within the State without the
countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of the
G
~ other region or of each of the other regions concerned and it
-Y shall as soon as possible send copies of proceedings to the
concerned regions. The Regional Transport Authority granting a
permit under sub-rule (1) of Rule 163-A of Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules is required before granting a permit in case of
a stage carriage permit to seek the concurrence of the other H
72 \ SUPREME CO!JR1 REPORTS [ 1986) 2 S.C.R.
A
·Regional Transport Authority. Rule 163-B of Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules provides that the provisions of Rule 163-A may
be applied to variation, extension and curtailment of routes
and to grant or refusal of endorsement as they apply to the
grant of a permit. It is significant that this.rule does not
say that an application for variation would be subject to the
B provisions of 8.45 of the Act but the provisions of Rule 163-A
·shall as far as may be applied to variation of a permit. There
is no express requirement in this Rule to comply with the
provisions of s.45 of the.Act. (94 H; 95 A-DJ
2. (Hi) The words in sub-s. (8) of s. 57 of the Act "An
c,. application to vary the conditions of any permit... by the
variation, extension or curtailment of the route or the area
specified in the permit ••• shall be treated as an application
for the grant of a new permit" create a legal fiction of
limited character only for the purpose of making the procedure
prescribed in sub-s. (3) to (7) of s.57 applicable. A permit
D is a docliment issued by a certain Regional Transport Authority
authorising the use of a ·transport vehicle in a particular
way. That can be varied or· modified only by the authority
issuing it or by an authority exercising appellate or
revisional jurisdiction over it and not by another authority
of equal power exercising jurisdiction on another region. In
E the case of an inter-regional route also a pe=it as mentioned
earlier should be issued first by the Regional Transport
Authority having territorial jurisdiction as provided in s. 45
of the Act. If a part of the route mentioned·in that permit
lies outside its region but within the jurisdiction of another
Regional Transport Authority, the other Regional Transport
.F Authority may either countersign the permit or may refuse to
countersign it under s. 63(1) of the Act. If the other
Regional Transport Authority countersigns the permit then on
the basis of the said permit it would be open to the holder of
the permit to run his vehicle along the portion of the route
lying within the other region. If the permit is not so
,G countersigned he would not be able to do so. But on the permit
being countersigned, the permit would not cease to be the
permit of the authority which issued it originally. To
'countersign' means 'to sign opposite to, along side of or in·
addition to another signature 'or' to add one's signature to a
document (already signed by another) for authentication or
H confirmation'. It follows logically that when a variation of
T'IT!FATSIJAMY v, MURllGAN JlllS SERVIl"E 73
A
-/the permit is sought the Regional Transport Authority which
issued the permit originally must be first approached and it
' is only after it has accorded its sanction to the variation
prayed for, the counter-signature of the permit so varied may
be sought under s. 63(1) of the Act frcim the Regional
Transport Authority. It is always open to the· Regional
Transport Authority with.in whose jurisdiction the portion of
the route or area in respect of which extension is sought lies
..\to refuse to countersign the permit even after an order of
variation has been passed by the authority which hacl granted
the permit originally. If it countersigns such a permit, the
-_, grant of variation by the Regional Transport Authority which
(bas granted the permit would be effective, otherwise not •. At c
"'any rate there is opportunity for both the Regional Transport
~thorities to consider whether the vehicle in respect of
which the permit is given can be allowed to move along the new
route or area if the above view is taken. Any other construc-
tion of the provisions of the Act would be contrary to the
entire scheme of the Act. [90 H; 91 A-H; 92 A~] n
2,(iv) Where totally a new route is sought to be
.. included by an application to vary the conditions of the
~permit or the alteration of the route sought by such an
application is of such a drastic character that it bec;omes
substantially a new route, the application may be treated as
an application for grant of a new permit and may be for that
- reason rejected by the Regional Transport Authority which
originally granted it. But merely because in a given case the
··-,entire new route or area which is to be included lies within
_,. 'the jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority or a
- , major portion of the total route (including the route in F
\;spect of which the extension is sought) lies within the
jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority, it
cannot be said that an application for a new permit has been
made and the proviso of s,45 of the Act would be attracted.
Then the proceeding would not be a proceedlng for variation of
the existing permit but would be a proceeding for the grant of G
~ a new permit. [93 D-G]
-y
Shiv Chand Amolak Chand v. Regional Transport Authority
&Anr., [1984] 1 s.c.R. 288, relied upon.
Delhi Administration v. State of Haryana &Ors., [1979]
1 S.C.R. 70, referred to.
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A
In the instant case, the variation that is sought\_
affects both the regions since one part of variation relates
to conversion of the town service into a mof ussil service and ~
reduction of the number of trips within the Periyar District
and another part relates to extension and that extension of
the route in the Salem District cannot be granted without
B reducing the numbers of trips within the Periyar District. The
Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District should have
naturally control over its permit and its sanction should be~
first obtained before seeking the countersignature of the
Salem Regional Transport Authority. If the Regional Transport
Authority of Periyar District comes to the conclusion that ......_
c there is need for doing so it may grant the variation sough~ r-
for and the said variation would have to be necessarily agaiof.-
countersigned by the Salem Regional Transport Authority sl.nce
the route between Tiruchengode and Salem lies within thE!"
jurisdiction of Salem Regional Transport Authority. Both the
Regional Transport Authorities would ultimately be required to
D concur for the variation sought. But if the view expressed by
the High Court is accepted on the Salem Authority sanctioning
the variation sought for by the holder of the permit the
proceedings would come to an end and the Regional Transport
Authority of Periyar District would have no opportunity to.
A
express its views at all. Siuce there would not be publication
E of the application for variation within the jurisdiction of
the Periyar Regi.onal Transport Authority, the members of the
public, the local authorities, the police authorities etc. - -
within its region would also have no opportunity to express
their views on the merits of the case. [92 E-H; 93 A-C]
F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1126 of ~
1986. _,> ,
From the Judgment and Order dated 20th December, 1985 of
the Madras High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 1773, 1774, 1775, 1926,
2040, 2047, 2159 and 2388 of 1985.
G
S. Srinivasan for the Appellant.
,..
Dr. Y.S. Chi.tale and A. T.M. Sampath for the Respon-Y-
dents.
H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE (VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 75
A
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant is the holder of a stage
carriage permit in r.espect of a motor vehicle bearing No. TDL-
7755 plying on the town service route No. l.A from Erode
Railway Station to Tiruchengode via P.S. Park, Ex-Clock Tower,
Sathy Road, Bus Stand, K.N.K. Road, Pallipalayam, S.P.B.
Factory, S.P.B. Colony and Thokkavadl., The existing route
B
length is 23.7 Kms. At present the appellant's bus is
performing 12 single trips between Erode Railway Station and
A
Tiruchengode and 8 single trips between Erode Railway Station
and S.P.B. Factory. The total kilometerage per day comes to
358 Kms. The said permit had been issued by the Regional
Transport Authority of Periyar District, Erode in the State of
_.!, Tamil Nadu. He applied to the Regional Transport Authority of c
-the District of Periyar which had issued the permit for its
variation involving :
'I·
(1) conversion of the town servl.ce into a mofussil
service;
D
(2) curtailment of the sector from Erode Railway
Station to Erode Bus Stand via P.S. Park and Sathy
Road;
i
L,J,
(3) curtailment of 10 single trips between Erode
Bus Stand and S.P.B. Factory;
E
( 4) curtailment of 2 single trips between S. P. B.
Factory and Tiruchengode; and
(5) extension of route from Tiruchengode to Salem
via Mallasa111.1dram, Attayampatti and Ariyanur.
~
F
It may be mentioned here that while Erode Railway
""/ ~tation, P.S. Park and Bus Stand are in Periyar District,
Pallipalayam, S.P.B. Factory, S.P.B. Colony and Tiruchengode
are in Salem District of Tamil Nadu. The existing permit is,
therefore, an inter-regional permit. The entire route between
G
Tiruchengode and Salem in respect of whlch extension of the
--y permit was sought is also in Salem District. The application
for variation made by the appellant was duly notified under
section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') and representations/objections
thereto were invited. Thereafter the Regional Transport
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] z s.c.R.
A
Authority heard the appellant and others who had filed \,_
objections and representations and passed a resolution on June
1, 1984 rejecting the said application. It held inter alia
that the conversion of the town service into a mofussil
service and curtailment of 10 trips between Erode Bus Stand
and S,P.B, Factory and 2 trips between S.P.B. Factory and
B
Tiruchengode were not in the public interest. It also held
that the entire sector in respect of which the extension was .k
sought lay within Salem District that the said sector was ·
well-served by stage carriage services and that it was not
proper for it to grant the extension since the entire route ,
between Tiruchengode and Salem lay within the jurisdiction of
c the Regional Transport Authority, Salem. On these grounds the~
Regional Transport Authority of the'District of Periyar found
that there was no ground for granting the varia.tion prayed :v
for. Aggrieved by the resolution of the Regional Transport
Authority of th~ District of Periyar, the appellant preferred
an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribun.~l,
D
Madras (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The
Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and
granted the variation (including the extension) applied for
with slight modification, The Tribunal directed that the j
appellant's bus should perform the following pattern of ,.,__
trips :
E
(1) two single trips from Erode Railway Station to
Salem;
(2) four single trips from Erode Bus Stand to r
Salem; and
F
(3) four single trips from Erode Railway Station t~
Ti ruchengode. ·
It directed the Secretary of the Regional Transport
Authority, Periyar District at Erode to fix suitable timings
G
within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of on April 19, 1985, In
its proceedings dated 4.10, 1985 the Secretary, Regional ,.--·
Transport Authority, Periyar District, Erode fixed the timings
as directed by the Tribunal but since in the meanwhile a stay
H
order had been issued by the High Court in some civil revision
petitions and a writ petition filed by some of the objectors,
it directed that the timings fixed would be given effect to as
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 77
A
--<, and when the order of stay was vacated. The revision petitions
and the writ petition filed by some of the objectors against
the order of the Tribunal which are referred to above were
disposed of by the High Court on December 20, 1985 by allowing
them. The High Court held that the Regional Transport
Authority, Periyar District at Erode had no jurisdiction to B
entertain the application for variation since the entire route
~ in respect of which extension was sought lay within the juris-
diction of the Salem Regional Transport Authority and, there-
fore, the proceedings co1DIDenced with the said application were
' liable to be quashed. On the other contentions raised by the
_,petitioners before it, it expressed no opinion and left them
J_ open. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the
c
appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave before
';{ this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The short question for decision in this case is whether
an application for the variation of an existing permit
involving the extension of the route or the area specified in D
the permit, where the portion of the route or area in respect
of which extension is sought lies entirely within the
l jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority which had not
"' granted the permit, should be made to the Regional Transport
Authority which had granted the permit or to the Regional
Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the route or E
area in respect of which extension is sought lies. The answer
• to this question depends upon the construction of some of the
relevant provisions found in Chapter IV of the Act. Section 42
~ of the Act provides that no owner of a transport vehicle shall
use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place,
l whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger
or goods, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit
. granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport
Authority or the Inter-State Transport Commission Constituted
under section 63-A of the Act, authorising the use of the
F
vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is
being used. The expression 'permit' is defined in sub-section G
(20) of section 2 of the Act as the document issued by the
r' Colllllission or a State or Regional Transport Authority
authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract
carriage, or stage carriage, or authorising the owner as a
private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle. We are
concerned in this case with a motor vehicle used as a stage H
78 \ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1986) 2 S.C. R.
A
carriage vehicle. Sub-section (29) of section 2 of the Act
defines a 'stage carriage' as a nx>tor vehicle carrying or
adapted to carry more than- six persons excluding the driver
which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fares
paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole
journey or for stages of the journey. Section 45 of the Act is
B the general provision governing the question involved in this
case. The material part of that section reads thus :
"45. General provision as to applications for
permits - (1) Every application for a permit shall
be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the
c region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle
or vehicle~;.
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
'D
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
E or vehicles;
.............................................. "
. Sub-section ( l) of section 45 of the Act provides that
every application for a permit shall ,be made to the Regional
Transport Authority of the region -in which it is proposed to
F use the vehicle or vehicles. The first proviso .to sub-section -y
(1) of section 45 of the Act provides 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
G 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 o_r
vehicles. In the instant case the appellant had obtained the
permit for plying this stage carriage from the Regional
Transport Authority of Periyar District, since the major
H portion of the route in respect of which the said permit had
DURAISUAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.) 79
A
"""'(
been issued was lying within its jurisdiction. Sub-section (1)
of section 63 of the Act, however, provides that except as may
be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional
Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in
any other. region, unless the permit has been countersigned by
the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. B
The relevant portion of section 63 of the Act is set out
below :
"63. Validation of permits for use outside region
in which granted. - (1) Except as may be otherwise
prescribed, · a permit granted by the Regional c
Transport Authority of any one region shall not be
valid in any other region, unless the permit has
been countersigned by the Regional Transport
Authority of that other region, and •••••••••
D
(2) A Regional Transport Authority when
countersigning the permit may attach to the permit
any condition which it might have imposed if it had
granted the permit, and may likewise vary any
condition attached to the permit by the Authority
by which the.permit was granted.
E
(3) The provisions of the Chapter relating to the
grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall
apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of
· counte~ignatures of permits ••••• "
F
''( Rilles 163-A, 163-B and 208 of the Tamil Na\fu Motor
Vehicles Rilles framed under the Act provide for an alternative
procedure to be followed when ·the motor vehicle is to be
operated in two or more regions inside,the State of Tamil Nadu
as authorised by section 63(1) of the Act. They read thus :
G
"163-A: ( 1) The Regional Transport Authority of any
one region may, subject to the provisions of
r
section 45 of the Act, grant a permit to be valid
· in any other region within the State without the
counter-signature of the Regional Transport
Authority of the other region or of each of the
H
other regions concerned and it shall as soon as
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986) 2 S.C.R.
A
)"
possible, send. copies or proceedings relating to ·
the issue of such permit to the concerned regions :
Provided. that no Regional Transport Authority shall
grant a permit on routes for which the State
Transport Authority as the sole Transport Authority
B under rule 141 unless such power is delegated by -'f--
the State Transport Authority under Rule 140-A.
·(2) The Regional Transport: Authority granting a
permit under sub-rule (1) shall, before granting a
permit -
c
(a) in case of a stage carriage permit obtain the y-
concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority ·
concerned, -
.( (b) notify, under sub-section (3) of section 57 of
D the Act, the whole of the route or area which lies
within the State and in respect of which an
application for the grant of a permit has been
received, by publishing it on the notice board of
the Regional Transport Authority of that other
. region and shall hear the applicant or any other
E 'person making representations. ~·
163-B. The provisions' of rule 163-A shall, as far
as may be apply to variation, extension and
curtailment of routes and to grant and renewal of
endorsement as they.apply to grant of permit.
F
208. (a) Upon application. made in 'writing by they
holder of any permit, the. Transport Authority may,
at any time, in its discretion, vary the permit or
any of the conditions thereof subject to the
provisions of sub-rule (b).
G
(b) If the application is for the variation of the 1
permit by the inclusion of an additional. vehicle or,,....,_
vehicles or if the grant of variation would
authorise transport facilities materially different
f.rom. those authorised.. lzy'· the original permit the
H T:r;insport, Authority shall, deal: with, the application
as_ if.' ·it: were. an, apl'licat:Jon, f.or· a, permit.~·
DURAISWAMY v, MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [ VENKATARAMIAH, J. ] 81
Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall A
prevent the Transport Authority or its Secretary,
if authorised in this behalf, from summarily
rejecting an application for the variation of a
stage carriage permit so as to provide transport
facilities on a road which has been or is certified
to be unfit for motor vehicular traffic by an B
officer not below the rank of Divisional Engineer
of the Highways Department."
In the instant ~ase it is not disputed that the major
portion of the route mentioned in the permit of the appellant
-~ -was lying within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport
Authority or Periyar and the smaller portion lay within the c
District of Salem. It is also not disputed that if the route
in respect of which extension is sought is added then the
major portion of the total route would be within the District
of Salem.
- An application for a permit in respect of a service of
stage c.3rriages or to use a particular motor vehicle as a
stage carriage has to be made in accordance with section 46 of
the Act and the rules made thereunder. The application should
contain the following particulars, namely :
D
( i) the route or routes or the area or areas to E
which the application relates ;
(ii) the number of vehicles it is proposed to
operate in relation to each route or area and the
type and seating capacity of each such vehicle;
F
(iii) the mininum and maxinum number of daily trips
proposed to be provided in relation to each route
or area and the time table of the normal trips ;
.., (iv) the number of vehicles intended to be kept in
reserve to maintain the service and to provide for G
special occasions ;
( v) the arrangements intended to be made for the
housing and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort
and convenience of passengers and for the storage
and safe custody of luggage; and H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A (vi) such other matters as may be prescribed by the
rules framed under the Act. r""'
When an application is made for a permit in respect of a
stage carriage service under section 45 of the Act the
Regional Transport Authority concerned has to follow the
procedure prescribed in section 57 of the Act. Sub-section (3)
B of section 57 of the Act reads thus : i
"57(3). On receipt of an application for a stage
carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the "'"
Regional Transport Authority shall make the '
application available for inspection at the office )...~
c of the Authority and shall publish the application
or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner Y
together with a notice of the date before which
representation in connection therewith may be
submitted and the date, not being less than thirty
days from such publication, on which, and the time
D and place at which, the application and any re-
presentations r.eceived will be considered." I'-
Sub-section (4) of section 57 of the Act provides that no ,>..
representation in connection with an application referred to
in sub-section (3) thereof shall be considered by the Regional
E Transport Authority unless it is made in writing before the
JI
appointed date and unless a copy thereof is furnished
simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such ·
representation. When any representation such as ref erred to in
sub-section (3) thereof is made the Regional Transport
Authority is required by sub-section (5) thereof to dispose of
F the application at a public hearing at which the applicant and
the person making the representation shall have an opportunity
of being heard either in person or by a duly authorised
representative. Section 47 of the Act requires a Regional
Transport Authority to have regard while considering an
application for a stage carriage permit to the following
G matters, namely :
(i) the interest of the public generally
(ii) the advantages to the public of the service to
be provided, including the saving of time likely to
H
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 83
be effected thereby and any convenience arising A
from journeys not being broken
(iii) the adequacy of other passenger transport
services operating or likely to operate in the near
future, whether by road or other means, between the
places to be served ; B
(iv) the benefit to any particular locality or
localities likely to be afforded by the service ;
(v) the operation by the applicant of other
transport services, including those in respect of
which applications from him for permits are c
pending; and
(vi) the condition of the roads included in the
proposed_ route or area.
The Regional Transport Authority is also required to take D
into consideration any representation made by persons already
. --'-
providing transport facilities by any mearn• along or near the
proposed route or area, or by any assoclation representing
persons interested in the provision of road transport
facilities recognised by the State Government or-by any local
--..,. authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any E
part of the proposed route or area lies. Sub-section (3) of
--., section 47 of the Act ·provides that a Regional Transport
Authority, may having regard to the matters mentioned in
""1...\ _section 47(1) limit the number of stage carriages generally or
rof any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be
1
granted in the region or in any specified area or on any F
specified route within the region. Section 48 of the Act
provides that subject to the provisions of section 47 of the
Act, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application
made to it under section 46 of the Act, grant a stage carriage
-'lll permit in accordance with the application or with such
. ..,, modifications as it deel15 fit or refuse to grant such a G
permit. It, however, provides that no such permit shall be
granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the
application. Sub-section (3) of section 48 .of t~e Act
authorises the Regional Transport Authority, if 1t decides to
grant a stage carriage perlDit, to grant it subject to any or
H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 $,C.R.
A
more of the conditions mentioned in clauses (i) to (xxiii) in;.-.
sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Act, one such condition
being the condition referred to in clause (xxi) of sub-section
(3) of section 48 of the Act which reads thus :
"(xxi) that the Regional Transport Authority may,
B after giving notice of not less than one month --
(a) vary the conditions of the permit;
(b) attach to the permit further conditions
Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance)...·
c
of clause ( i) shall not be varied so as to alter
the distance covered by the original route by ioore Y
than 24 kilometers, and any variation within such
limits shall be made only after the Regional
Transport Authority is satisfied that such
D variation will serve the public convenience and
that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit
i.n respect of the original route as so varied or ;..
any part thereof."
Clause (xxi) of sect ion 48(3) of the Act refers to the
-
E
power of variation which the Regional Transport Authority may
exercise -
suo
--motu.
--
The duration and renewal of a stage carriage permit are .,.~
governed by section 58 of the Act. That section provides that
a stage carriage permit (other than a tempotary permit issued r
under section 62) shall be effective without renewal -for sucn..):c·
F
period, not less than three years and not more than five/
years, as the Regional Transport Authority may specify in the
permit. As provided in sub-section (2) of section 58 of the
Act a permit may be renewed on an application made and
disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. A
G renewal of a permit is in effect the continuation of the
original permit. Section 60 of the Act inter alia provides ..
that the transport authority which granted a permit may cancel ! ..
the permit or·may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit ._
if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle
to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit. The
H provisions contained in section 60 of the Act apply to
DURAISWAMY v. MURUG~ BUS SERVICE [ VENKATARAMIAH, J. ] 85
--lrevocation and suspension of counter-signatures of permits by A
virtue of sub-section (3) of section 63 of the Act.
Since a stage carriage permit is issued for the benefit
of the general public, it is obligatory that the holder of a
stage carriage permit should operate the stage carriage
B
vehicle in accordance with the conditions of the permit on the
route or area in question. If he wishes any alteration in the
~ route or area for which he has obtained a permit he has to get
his permit varied in accordance with law. Sub-section (8) of
section 57 of the Act (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act No. 3 of
1964) which deals with the procedure to be followed by the
,_(holder of a permit who seeks such variation, reads thus :
c
"57(8). An application to vary the conditions of
any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the
inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or
by the variation, extension or curtailment of the
route or the area specified in the permit, or, in
the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing D
the number of trips above the specified maxillllm or
by altering the route covered by it or in the case
of a contract carriage permit or a public carrier's
permit, by increasing the number of vehicles
covered by the permit, shall be treated as an
application for the grant of a new permit." E
(underlining by us)
'"(
The controversy involved in this case has arisen primar-
ily on account of the language used in sub-section (8) of
-section 57 of the Act. It may be noted that sub-section F
(8) of section 57 of the Act does not expressly prescribe the
Regional Transport Authority to which an application for the
variation of a permit has to be made where the route or area
in respect of '1hich extension is sought lies outside the
jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority which has
granted the ·permit but within the jurisdiction of another G
'( Regional Transport Authority. The said sub-section is silent
about it. It, however, provides that an application for the
variation of a permit which involves extension or curtailment
of the route or area specified in the permit should be treated
as an application for grant of a new permit. In sub-section
H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A (2) of section 58 of the Act a similar language is adopted.).__.
That sub-section provides that a permlt'may be renewed on an
application made and disposed of as if it were an application
for a permit. In the case of a renewal of a permit, however,
there is no difficulty in determining the Regional Transport
Authority to which an application for renewal is to be made.
It should be made to the Regional Transport Authority which
B has granted the permit originally and there is no room for any
controversy in this case. An application for renewal of a>-
permit and an application for variation of a permit have both
to be treated as applications for a new permit and in both the
cases the procedure prescribed for the grant of a new permit
has to be followed. As mentioned earlier the said procedure
c includes all the steps mentioned in sub-sections (3), (4), (5))...,-
and (7) of section 57 of the Act. The application should be
advertised, representations and objections thereto should be .¥ ·
invited and the application should be considered at a public
hearing at which the applicant and the persons making re-
presentations and objections should be given an opportunity of
D being heard either in person or by duly authorised representa-
tives. The question, however, remains whether the words 'shall
be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit' in
sub-section (8) of section 57 of the Act should be read as Ji. i
meaning that the Regional Transport Authority which can enter-
tain an application for variation is the Regional Transport
E Authority which can entertain an application for a fresh
permit in respect of a stage carriage for the entire route
including the' portion in respect of which extension is sought
or that the application for variation can be made to the -.,.
Regional Transport Authority which had granted the permit, but
the procedure prescribed under section 57 of the Act for the-.1111
F grant of a permit should be followed. Jiii
The High Court has taken the view in this case that where 1.
the entire proposed route or area in respect of which -
extension is sought lies outside the jurisdiction of the
Regional Transport Authority which has granted the primary
G permit or where the major portion of the total route (includ-
ing the route in respect of which extension is sought) is y
outside it, the application for variation of a permit llllSt be
made to that Regional Transport Authority within whose juris-
diction the entire route or area in respect of which extension
is sought is lying or the major portion of the total route
H
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J. ] 87
·~ (including the route or area in respect of which extension is A.
sought) is lying, irrespective of the fact that the permit
whose variation is sought is issued by a different authority.
The relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court is set
out below
"13. In the case of a new permit, if it is proposed B
to use the vehicle in two or more regions lying
within the same State, if the major portion of (?)
a particular Regional Transport A.uthority, he alone
will be the authority to grant the permit. May be,
here, we are concerned with a case of variation and
not the grant of a new permit. For the grant of a
new permit, the Regional Transport A.uthority within C
whose region the major portion of the proposed
route does not lie, cannot assume jurisdiction to
grant the permit. A. fortiori we have to take it
that he cannot usurp jurisdiction to consider the
question of variation where the major portion of
the proposed varied route lies within the region of D
another Regional Transport A.uthority. Otherwise
what cannot be achieved or done while granting a
new permit can be achieved or done under the guise
of a variation. This is not pe,rmissible. This is
the incongruity which llllst be avoided and it is
only in this sense, it is consistent with the E
scheme of the statutory provisions and with the
' concept of variation itself, to adhere to the limi-
tations or conditions set out in section 45(1)
first proviso even in the case of a variation or
extension on the facts of the p·resent case. Hence
variation in such a contingency will be a mis- F
conception and certainly, jurisdiction cannot have
foundation on such a misconception. In such a
contingency the very question of granting a
variation will stand excluded. It need not
necessarily be a question of altering the distance
covered by the original route by more than any G
prescribed length. Equally so, it is not a question
of considering the generality of the power of
variation by referring to rule 208.
14. It is a question of construing the scope of the
H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A
jurisdiction of an authority to grant variation. We ;..
need not trouble ourselves with the provision of
section 57(8) of the Act when it speaks about the
inclusion of a new route or routes while varying
the conditions of a permit other than a temporary
permit. A new route or routes may get included by
B varying the conditions of any permit. But the
question is, "When the new route or routes
completely fall outside the region of the Regional >
Transport Authority who is granting thEL permit or
varying the permit, can he assume jurisdiction to
indulge in such powers?" With regard to the grant •
C of a new permit, there could not be any ambiguity ~
in view of the express provisions of the statute. -·
The same interdict must govern the question of
variation also. Rule 163-A has not altered the ~
position. Countersignature after or concurrence
before the grant from the other authority has
D nothing to do with the primary jurisdiction to
consider the very grant which has been clearly set
in section 45(1) first proviso. At the risk of
repetition, it must be pointed out, rule 163A is ~
subject to the provisions of section 45 and by the ~
force of rule 163B read with rule 163A, the impli- ~
E cations of section 45(1) first proviso will
necessarily govern even the question of variation.
Hence under the guise of variation the Regional '
Transport Authority who granted the permit cannot
indulge in variation or extension so as to annex to T
the original permit a new route or routes the major~
F portion of which or the totality of which lies .
outside his region."
Section 45 of the Act deais with the territorial '
jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority. As far as
their powers and responsibilities are concerned, all Regional
G Transport Authorities have the same powers and responsibili-
ties under the Act. Any order passed by a Regional Transport
Authority either granting a permit or refusing to grant the .....J
permit is appealable under secti9n 64 of the Act to the St:ate ~
Transport Appellate Tribunal. Any person aggrieved by any
variation of the conditions attached to a permit may also 'I.
H prefer an appeal against the order of a Regional Transport
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J,] 89
-1 Authority to the Tribunal. Thus the Tribunal has the power to A
control the actions of every Regional Transport Authority
within the State. Sub-section (8) of section 57 of the Act
provides for the procedure to be followed in connection with a
variation, extension or curtailment of the route or the area
specified in the permit. It also states that an application
seeking such variation, extension or curtailment should be B
-'-\ treated as an application for the grant of a new permit, and
the effect of this clause has been explained by this Court in
Shiv Chand Amlak Chand v. Regional Transport Authority &
Anr., [1984] l S.C.R. 288 at pages 297 to 300 thus :
·~.
"There can be little doubt that under terms of sub-
section (8) of section 57, this application of the c
appellants was liable to be 'treated as an
application for the grant of a new permit.' But the
question is : for what purpose and what of the
provisions of the Act could be said to be attracted
to this application by reason of the requirement
that it should be treated as an application for the D
grant of a new permit, The argument of the
respondents was that no application for grant of a
new permit can be entertained by the Regional
Transport Authority under section 48, unless the
number of stage carriages for which permits may be
granted for the particular route is first determin- E
ed by the Regional Transport Authority under
sub-section (3) of section 47, and, therefore, the
consequence of treating the application of the
appellants for extension of the route as an appli-
cation for grant of a new permit was that no
extension could be granted by the Regional F
Transport Authority unless the requirement of
section 47 sub-section (3) was fJ.rst complied with
and the number of stage carriages for which permits
may be granted on the extended route was determined
under that provision. But we do not think this
argument is well -founded. G
y ....•.............................................
But we do not think that the prescription in
sub-section (8) of section 57 that an application
for varying the condition of a permit by extension
H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [t986J 2 s.c.R. -
A
of the route shall be treated as an application for)-..
grant of a new permit has the effect of equating
such an application with an application for gra11t
of a new per.it for all purposes so as to attract
the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 47.
Section 57 deals with the procedure in applying for
B and granting permits and sub-sections (3) to (7)
lay down the procedure which Jlllst be followed in ~
considering and deciding, inter alia, an appH-
cation for grant of a stage carriage permit.
Sub-sect~on (8) follows upon sub-sections (3) to
(7) and ls part of the same section which has a
c definite object and scheme of providing the)._
procedure for considering and granting an appli-
cation and, therefore, when it provides that an_..,
application to vary the conditions of a permit by '
the inclusion of new route or routes or new area or
by increasing the number of trips above the speci-
D fied maxillllm or by altering the route covered by it
shall be treated as an application for grant of a
new stage carriage permit it is obviously intended
to incorporate and make applicable the procedure , ,j
set Ollt in the preceding suh-11ectioos (3) to 7 to )m
such an application. The context in which suh-11ec-
E tion (8) occurs and its juxtaposition with
sub-sections (3) to (7) in section 57 clearly
indicate that what is sought to be ll8de applicable
to an application referred to in sub-section (8) by
treating it as an application for grant of a llll!!if r.
permit, is the procedure set out in sub-sections
F (3) to (7) of section 57 and nothing mre••••• " --41
(undPrlining by us) •
I
This Court ultimately in the above case came to thi
conclusion that an application for variation of a permit bi~
the inclusion of a new route could be considered without "'·
following the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of
section 47 of the Act which was otherwise a mandatory ._,.-
requirement in the case of an application for .a permit in
respect of a route or a specified area within a region made
for the first time. The words in sub-section (8) of section
H 57 of the Act "An application to vary the conditions of any
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 91
A
---1, permit •••• by the variation, extension or curtailment of the
route or the area specified in the permit ••••• shall be treated
as an application for the grant of a new permit" create a
legal fiction of limited character only for the purpose of
making the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (3) to (7) of
section 57 applicable. A permit is a document issued by a B
certain Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a
transport vehicle in a particular way and in this case it is
A
issued for the putj>ose of operating a stage carriage by a
transport authority. That can be varied or modified only by
the authority issuing it or by an authority exercising
appellate or revisional jurisdiction over it and not by
"' ~another authority of equal power exercising jurisdiction on c
another region. In the case of an inter-regional route also a
"-permit as mentioned earlier should be issued first by the
' Regional Transport Authority having territorial jurisdiction
as provided in section 45 of the Act. If a part of the route
mentioned in that permit lies outside its region but within
the jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority, the D
other Regional Transport Authority may either countersign the
permit or may refuse to countersign it under section 63(1) of
the Act. If the other Regional Transport Authority
,,_;
countersigns the permit then on the basis of the said permit
it would be open to the holder of the permit to run his
vehicle along the portion of the route lying within the other E
region. If the permit is not so countersigned he would not be
able to do so. But on the permit being countersigned, the
permit would not cease to be the permit of the authority which
~ issued it originally. To 'countersign' means 'to sign opposite
-A\ to, along side of or in addition to another signature 'or' to
- add one's signature to a document (already signed by another) F
41\,-for authentication or confirmation'. It follows logically that
when a variation of the permit is sought the Regional
Transport Authority which issued the permit originally DllSt be
first approached and it is only after it has accorded its
sanction to the variation prayed for, the counter-signature of
the permit so varied may be sought under section 63(1) of the G
Act from the other Regional Transport Authority. It is always
open to the Regional Transport Authority within whose
Y jurisdiction the portion of the route or area in respect of
whicb extension is sought lies to refuse to countersign the
permit even after an order of variation has been passed by the
authority which had granted the permit originally. If it H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A
countersigns such a permit, the grant of variation by the \-
Regional Transport Authority which has granted the permit
would be effective, otherwise not. At any rate there :ls
opportunity for both the Regional Transport Authorities to
consider whether the vehicle in respect of which the permit :Ls
given can be allowed to move along the new route or area if
B the above view is taken. On the other hand, if the view tak<m
by the High Court is accepted, it would be enough if an ,..,
application is made for sanctioning variation of the permit by
the inclusion of a new route or area in the permit to the
c
Regional Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the new
route or area lies and if that authority sanctions such
variation it would be unnecessary to seek the approval of the~ ' '
-
Regional Transport Authority which had granted the permit
originally to such variation because there is no provision ~
which requires the holder of the permit to approach the '
original .authority at all corresponding to section 63(1) of
the Act ·which compels him to approach the original authority
D after seeking the approval of the Regional Transport Authority
within whose jurisdiction the new route or area ls situated.
The construction of the provisions of the Act in this way ,..._
would be contrary to the entire scheme of the Act. To
illustrate the above point let us take the facts of this very ),_
case. The Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District had
E granted the permit originally taking into consideration the
needs of the people along the route between Erode Railway
Station and Tiruchengode and it had also fixed the number of
trips to be made on the different sectors of the same route
within its region. If an application for variation for the )
said permit is made to that authority it would be open to it J-
F to consider in the light of the needs of the people of the_,,-
locality whether it is in the public interest to grant
extension beyond Tiruchengode upto Salem or not after
curtailing the number of trips on certain sectors. If the
Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District comes to the.
conclusion that there is need for doing so it may grant the
G variation sought for and the said variation would have to be
necessarily again countersigned by the Salem Regional 14.
Transport Authority since the route between Tiruchengode and Y
Salem lies within the jurisdiction of Salem Regional Transport
Authority. Both the Regional Transport Authorities would
ultimately be required to concur for the variation sought. But
-H if the view expressed by the High Court is accepted on the
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J,] 93
-i A
Salem Authority sanctioning the variation sought for by the
holder of the permit the proceedings would come to an end and
the Regional Transport Authority of Perl.yar District would
have no opportunity to express its views at all. Since there
would not be publication of the application for variation
within the jurisdiction of the Periyar Regional Transport B
Authority, the members of the public, the local authorities,
,-. the police authorities etc. within its region would also have
no opportunity to express their views on the merits of the
case. It may happen in a given case that people for whose
_. benefit the route was opened and the permit was given
.., ,.originally may be denied the transport facilities altogether
--1,by virtue of the variation of the permit being sanctioned by c
another Regional Transport Authority without their knowledge.
'!-Virtually the order of the Salem Regional Transport Authority
granting variation would amount to the grant of a fresh permit
altogether and not the variation of a permit granted original-
ly by Periyar Regional Transport Authority. In an appropriate
case, as observed in Shiv a.and Amolak Oiand's case (supra) D
that where totally a new route is sought to be included by an
.a, application to vary the conditions of the permit or the
alteration of the route sought by such an application is of
--' such a drastic character that it becomes substantially a new
route, the application may be treated as an application for
grant of a new permit and may be for that reason rejected by E
the Regional Transport Authority which originally granted it.
~
But merely because in a given case the entire new route or
area which is to be included lies within the jurisdiction of
- ~ another Regional Transport Authority or a major portion of the
~ , total route (including the route in respect of which the
~extension is sought) lies within the jurisdiction of another F
Regional Transport Authority, it cannot be said that an
application for a new permit has been made and the proviso of
section 45 of the Act would be attracted. Then the proceeding
would not be a proceeding for variation of the existing permit
but would be a proceeding for the grant of a new permit. If it
is an application for a fresh permit in respect of the same G
--.... bus, then the question would be different as observed by this
~Court in ll@lhi Administration v. State of Haryana & Ors.,
[1979] 1 S.C.R. 70. In that case Haryana Roadways held
inter-State permits to operate stage carriages between Delhi
and Karnal. These permits had been countersigned by Delhi
Administration. Haryana Roadways then obtained fresh permits H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A
to ply the same stage carriages from Kamal to Chandigarh from '--
the Regional Transport Authority at Karnal. It was contended
that it aioounted to variation of the original inter-State
permit and without the concurrence of Delhi Administration the
stage carriages could not be operated from Delhi to Chandigarh
with the aid of the fresh permits referred to above. TMs
B Court negatived it by observing at pages 77 & 78 thus :
,_
"5. We also find no force in the plea that the
plying of vehicles by the Haryana Roadways beyond
c
the inter-State route under valid permits issued by
the coq>etent authority would aioount to an.
'extension' of the route such as is prohibited by)._
, -
the Act. Reliance in support of the plea was placed
on sub-s. ( 8) of s. 57 of the Act which lays down : +
..................................................
As pointed out by the High Court, the language of
the sub-section applies only to a case where the
D permit-holder applies for the variation of the
conditions of his permit by inclusion of a new
route or routes or a new area or by increasing the
number of services above the specified maxi!lllm. In
the case before us this situation does not arise at
all inas!lllch as the Haryana Roadways has not
E applied for the variation of any permit in any way
and has, on the other hand, taken and exploited
quite another permit for an entirely different
route from another coq>etent authority. Apart from_
sub-sec. (8) abovementioned, we have not been 'r
ref erred to any provision of the Act in support of . J--
F the plea under consideration which, therefore!._)11-
fails."
But in the present case, the application is not for a
fresh permit, but for the variation of an existing permit. The
High Court tried to distinguish the decision in Shiv C2iand
G Allolak aiaod's case (supra) by observing that in the State of
Madhya Pradesh from which the said case arose there might not ,,..-
have been rules corresponding to rules 163-A, 163-B and 208 of ·'JI
the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. In our view the presence
of such rules would not make any difference at all. These
Rules provide for a procedure alternative to what is
H prescribed by section 63(1) of the Act. Rule 163-A says that
DIJRAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.) 95
A
..J, the Regional Transport Authority of any one region may,
subject to the proviso to section 45 of the Act, grant a
permit to be valid in any other region within the State
without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport
Authority of the other region or of each of the other regions
concerned and it shall as soon as possi.ble send copies of B
proceedings to the concerned regions. The Regional Transport
.,. Authority granting a permit under sub-rule (1) of rule 163-A
' of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules is required before granting
a permit in case of a stage carriage permit to seek the
concurrence of the other Regional Transport Authority. Rule
.., 163-B of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules provides that the
,1 provisions of rule 163-A may be applied to variation, c
, cexte1l$iOn and curtailment of routes and to grant or refusal
of endorsement as they apply to the grant of a permit. It is
1" significant that this rule does not say that an application
for variation would be subject to the provisions of section 45
of the Act but the provisions of rule 163-A shall as far as
may be applied to variation of a permit. There is no express D
requirement in this rule to comply with the provisions of
section 45 of the Act. In any event it is difficult to accept
the view of the High Court that when the new route or routes
. . in respect of which variation is sought completely falls
outside the region of the Regional Transport Authority which
has granted the permit or where the major portion of the total E
route lies outside its jurisdiction its power to grant
~·· variation stands excluded. This view is directly contrary to
the express provision contained in section 57(8) of the Act
-'i which authorises every Regional Transport Authority to grant
the variation of a permit by the inclusion of a new route. The
incongruities that may arise from the view expressed by the F
gh Court would become more obvious when we take some
illustrations for consideration. Take the case of an
inter-regional route which is 70 kilometres in length out of
which a portion measuring 50 kilometres lies within region 'A'
and remaining portion measuring 20 kilometres in region 'B'
and the permit is granted by the Regional Transport Authority G
having jurisdiction over region 'A'. Let us assume ·that the
'"" · holder of the permit applies for an extension of the route by
~ 10 kilometres which entirely lies in the region 'B'. In this
case, if the view of the High Court is to be accepted as
correct, the application for the variation of the permit
granted by the Regional Trall$port Authority having H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986) 2 S.C.R.
A
jurisdiction over region 'A' would have to be made to the)'-
Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction •Jver region
'B', ·even _though an application for a fresh perm::: to ply a
:stage carriage on the entire route can be made to the Regional
· '·Transport Authority of region 'A' as the major portion of the
route would still be in region 'A'. Secondly in a case like
the one before· us the variation that is sought affects both
B
the regions since one part of variation relates to conversiori+--
of the town service into a mofussil service and reduction of
the number of trips . within the Periyar ·District and another
part relates to extension and that extension of the route in
the Salem District cannot be granted without reducing the
numbers of trips within the Periyar District. In this case the
Regional Transport AUthority of Periyar District should have
naturally control over its permit and its sanction should be/
first ·obtained before seeking the counter-signature of the
Salem Regional Transport Authority. Let us assume that by the
application the holder of a permit seeks the variation of.his
permit' by the curtailment of a portion of the route which
D
entirely lies within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Transport Authority which has not granted the permit but only
countersigned.the permit. If the view of the High Court is to
be accepted even in such a case the application for grant of
variation by curtailment may have to be made to the other
Regional Transport Authority and not to the Regional Transport--{
E
Authority-which has granted the permit since the portion in,
respect of which curtailment is sought lies exclusively within
the jurisdiction of that authority. More than all, the permit
granted by one authority cannot be allowed to be modified by
an~ther. In view of these considerations we hold that section
45 of the Act does not apply to the case of a variation of a /
F
permit and that when a variation of a permit is sought the)
application for the grant of such variation.should be made to
the Regional Transport Authority.which has granted the permit
even though the entire route' or· area in respect of which
extension is sought lies in another region or a major portion
of the entire route (including the new route or area) lies
G
within another region •. On such application being made it is
the duty of the Regional Transport Authority which has granted.-J..
the permit to consider whether the variation sought should be ·
sanctioned in the public interest or not. If that Regional
Transport Authority grants variation prayed for then the
II
concurrence of the other Regional Transport Authority would
DURAISWAMY v. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE [VENKATARAMIAfl, J,] 97
A
~ have to be sought in accordance with either section 63( 1) of
the Act or where there are rules made corresponding to rules
163-A, 163-B and 208 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, as
far as may be in accordance with su~h rules. The decision of
the High Court is, therefore, liable to be reversed.
B
is seen that the judgment of the High Court is
It
"- entirely based on its decision on the question of jurisd1ction
of the Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District to
entertain the application. We are informed that there were
• other contentions raised by the parties which have not been
, considered by the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the
.J
Judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High C
'court to consider the other contentions raised in the case. If
~ the High Court finds it necessary to remand the case either to
the Tribunal or to the Regional Transport Authority in the
light of the submissions to be made before it, it is open to
the High Court to remand the case either to the Tribunal or to
the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be. D
I... The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order
• as to costs.
.. M.L.A • Appeal allowed.
I
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "inter‑regional permit"Sign in to search