Holding

An application to extend the route of an existing stage‑carriage permit, though deemed a ‘new permit’ under Section 57(8), is not subject to the pre‑condition of Section 47(3) and may be entertained without first determining the number of stage‑carriages permissible.

Summary

The appellants, a partnership holding a stage‑carriage permit, sought to extend their route after a portion had been deleted by a nationalisation scheme and a subsequent state notification allowing short district‑headquarter routes. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) rejected the extension, holding that the application was tantamount to a new permit and therefore required compliance with Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which mandates a prior determination of the number of stage‑carriages permissible on the route. The High Court affirmed this view. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that although Section 57(8) treats an application to vary a permit’s conditions as a ‘new permit’ for procedural purposes, this does not invoke the pre‑condition of Section 47(3); a short route extension may be considered without first fixing the carriage limit. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside and the matter remitted to the RTA for fresh consideration.

Issues considered

Whether an application for extension of the route specified in an existing stage‑carriage permit falls within the ambit of Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Whether Section 57(8) treating such an application as a ‘new permit’ necessarily subjects it to the procedural requirements of Section 47(3).

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 47(3), s. 48, s. 57(2), s. 57(3), s. 57(4), s. 57(5), s. 57(6), s. 57(7), s. 57(8), s. 58, s. 68F(2)

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActSection 47(3)Section 57(8)stage carriage permitroute extensionRegional Transport Authorityprocedural requirementnew permit

Judgment

•
SHIV CHAND AMOLAK CHAND

.v

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ANR.

B October 7, 1983

[P. N .. BHAGWATI ·AND R. B. MISRA JJ.)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sectfon 47(3) and 57(8) sco;e of- Wh~ther
Section 47(3) of the Act will be applicable when an application is made by a
c . holder of a permit for extension of the rouie specified in the permit.
' -,...
The appell~nts ·held stage carriage permit granted to them by the
Regional Transport Auth_ority for the route _Dabra-Karera Via Lodi Mato-
. extended\uPto Gwalior. On 22-6-1978, this route for which. the -permit wis
. held by the appellants wa:s modifie~ at their own request, by deleting the
pOrtion of Jie route from Karer8. to Shivpuri. By a notification d11ted 4-8-1971
D certain routes were nationalised Under Scheme No. 11-M which came into
effect from 25-9-1978, including deletion of the portion of the route from
Shivpuri .to Satanwara, with the result the permit of the appellants· remained
operative· only for the remaining portion ·of the route namely, Satanwara-
Gwalior Via ·Dabra. Effective from 19-12-1978, the State Gov('rnment issued
another Notification making mOditications in the route schemes. Since this
modHication perniitted plying of stage carriages by private operators even on
a portion of a nationalised roi.ite conneCting a district headquarters and not

-
more than 20 KMs in length, the appellants made an- application to the
Regi~al Transport Atithority-for restoring the portion of the· route from
Shivpuri to Satanwara on the.ground that Shivpuri waS a district headquarter
a"nd the portion of the route from ·shivpuri and Satanwara was less than 20
KMs. The Regional Transport Authority rejeCted the said application on the
.grqund that the"Notificatio~ dated 18-12-1978 did not have any retrospectiVc
F effect and therefore, the appellants .were not entitled to ciu~omatic restoration
of the porti9n of the route from Shivpuri to Satanwara. • .>-

The appellants thereupon filed an application· in t.he prescribed form for
extension of the route specified in their permit from Satanwara to Shivpuri.
The said application Was rejected after hearing the objections on two grounds,
G namely (i) the specific· order of the State Govt. Curtailing the Satanwara-
Shivpuri pOrtion of the applicants' Permit, while approving Scheme 11-M
cannot be tfeated as having been ainended by the General Amendment to the
Scheme and (ii) no extCnsion of the route could be granted without ·following
the pr~cedure laid down !n ~Section 47(3) of the ACt. This order of .the
Regional . ifranspOrt Authority was challenged by the· appellants in a writ
· petition filed .in the High Court of Madhya Prades~. The ~igh Court rejected
the petition holding that by reason of the express language of Sub-Section (8)
ofSectioD 57,.an application for extension of the i'oute specified in an existing
permit was tantamount to an .appl~caiion for grant Of a new permit and hCnce
SHIV CHAND v. R.T.A.
it was subject to the provisions of section 47(3)'and it could not be Considered
.without following the procedure prescribed by Section 47(3). Hence the appeal
after obtai~iog special leave of the Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

' HELD : I.I The application made by the appellants 'for extension ot
the route specified in• their pc:nnit from Satanwara to Shivpuri could be
considered by the Regional Transport Authority without following the proce-
dure prescribed ·under Sub-Section (3) of Section 47. [297 E·H] <\

1.2. ·However, under the terms of Sub-Section (8) of Section 57. this
application of'the appellants was liable to be treated as an application for th1
grant of a new permit, since in .effect and substance, it was· an application for
varying the condition of the perrnit by ~xtending the route from Shivpuri to c
Satanwara. But the question is for wh3t purpo.:e? [297 G-H]

2.1 Having regard to the several decisions of the Supreme Court and
particularly the decision in Mohd. Ibrahim v. ·State TranSport Appellate,
T,Jbunal, MarJras, [1971] 1 S.C.R. 474, the law is well settled that an applicatipn
for grant of a new permit cannot be ·entertained by the Regional Transport
Authority under Section 48. unless the limit of the number of stage-carriages D
for which permits ·niay be granted is first deter~iried ~n,der ~cciiori 47(3).
There are two independent steps required to be taken in connection with the
·~.
arant of·a Permit, ihe first being the detern1ination.by the Regional Transport
Authority under Section 47(3) of the number of stage-carriages for which
. permits may be granted and the second being that "thcrCafer applications for
itage carriage permits can be entertained" an~, therefore, it would mean th3t E
before an application for grant of a permit can be en:terfained by the Rea;ional
Transport Authority, there should be a determination under Section 47(3).
Therefore, if an application for varying the condition of a permit .IJy extension
of the route spec1ficd in the permit were equated wholly with -an application
for grant of a new Permit and the pCrmit for the extended route were to be
regarded a·s a new permit, the.prqcedure presCribed in Sec.tion 47(3) would have
to be follow.ed and the number of stage-carriages for which permits may be F
1ranted on· the extended route w'oi.1ld ha Ve to be ,determined before the appli-
cation could be entertained by the Regional Transpo~t Authority. ~ .•
(298 C·E; 2,9 E-F]

2.2 But, the prescnplion in Sub Section (8) of SeCtion 57 that an
application for varying the condition of a permit by extension of. the route
1hall b,e treated as an application for grant of a new permit has not the effect
of equating pf such an application with an application for grant of a new
permit for art purposes so as to attract the applicability of Sub Section (3) of
Section 47. (299 F·G] ·

'.l.l Section 57 deals with the pro~dure in applying for and. granting · H
pcrmitS and Sub Sections (3) to (7) lays down the procedUre which must be·
followed iri considering' and deciding, inter-alia,an
application'· for grant of a
stage-carriaae permit. Sub Secti.on (8) follows upon Sub Sections (3) to (7)
•
stlPIUlME coi.Jat REPoRTS ' (1~84) 1 s.C.!.
and is a part of the same Section which has a definite object and Scheine of
A providing the procedure for considering and granting an applic8.tion and
therefore, when it provides that an application to vary ihe conditions of a
permit by the inclusion of new route or routes or new area or by increasing
the number of trips above the specified inaxiinum or by altering the route
Covered-by it shall be treated as an application for grant of a new 'stage
carri3.ge permit; it is obviously intended to incorporate and make applicable
the procedure·- set out io the preceding Sub Sectioos (3) to (7) to such an
B application. The context in which Sub-Section~ (8) occurs and its juxtaposi-
tioi\i with Sub Seetion (3) to (7) in Section 58 clearly indicate that what is
sought to be m~de applicable to an application referred. to in Sub Section (8).
by "treatina it as an application for grant of a new permh is the procedure set
out in Sub Section (3) to (7) of Section 58 and nothing more.
[299 G-H; 300 A-CJ

c 3.2 The requirement spelt out in Sub Section (3) of Section 47 that the
· number of staae carriages for which pern1its may be granted on any particular
route must be first determined before an application for grant of a stage
carriaae pern1it can be entCrtained by the Regional T_ransport Authority under
Section 48, is obviously not a part of the procedure for considering an appli-
cation fQr grant of a permit; it is a condition precedent before an application
D for 1rant of a permit can be considered ·and granted. This condition cannot
be said to have been incorporated by reference under Sub.Section (8) of Section
57. An. application to vary the conditions of a permit as set out in Sub Section
(8) of Section 57 is undoubtedly to be treated as an application for grant -of
a new permit, but that is only for the purpose of applying the p1ocedure set
out in Sub Sections (3) to (1) of Section 57. It is not an application for a new
permit and if it is granted, the p,ermit for the extended route docs not become
E a new permit in the hands of the applicant. It is the same permit which noW
after granting of the application cov~rs the extended route. (300 ·C-FJ

3.3 Where a "totally new route is sought to be included by an appli-
cation to vary the c.onditions of a permit or the alteration of the rOute souaht
by such an application is of such a drastic character tha"tit becomes substan-
tially a new route, the application, though in form an application to vary the
conditions of the permit, would in effect and substance, be an application for
aran\ of a new permit and in such a case, a· view may conceivably be ·taken
with some degree of plausibility tha:t the number of stage-carriages for which
permits may be ·granted on such new route should fifst be determined u:Oder
Sub Section (3) of Section 47 before the application to vary the conditions of
the permit can be entertained. [300 F-H]
G
· An applicant for a permit on a route which is not rnerelY technically
& but ~n truth and reality a different route, distinct from the original route ma;
.... not be permitted to defeat the provision,'"enacted in Sub Section (3) of S~ction
~ 47, by labelling his applicition as one for· varying the conditioDs of the permit
1

H and in such a case, the procedure set out in :.::ection 47 (3) may have to be
complied with before the Region_;I Transport Authori~y can consider and grant
tbe application. [300 H; 301 A]

•
•
SHIV CHAND~. R.T,A; (Bhagwiiti, 1.)

But where ~D ··application merely scCks a short ·extensiofi of thC route
specified ta· the permit, aS in the present case, it Would noi be appropriate to A
say that it is an application for grant of a new permit, thollgh technically the
ex.tended route may not be regarded as the same as the original route and
where such is the case. it would not be necessary to comply with the procedure
set out in Sub Section (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. [301 B·CJ

"C1v1L APPELLATE Ju&1so1c110N : Civil Appeal No. 3787 of n
1983.

Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 19th March, 1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
Petition No. S65 of 1980. ' c
S.Q. Hassan, S.K. Mehta, P.N. Puri and M.K. Dua for the
Appellant.

Ramesliwar Nath for the Respondent. .
D
The Judg~ent of the Court was d!livered by

BHAGWATI, J. This appeal by special leave raises a short but
interesting question err law relating to the interpretation of certain
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act). The question is whether section 47 sub-section (3) of the
E·
Act is attracted when an application is made by the holder of a per·
mit for extension of the route for which the permit has been granted
to him. In order to appreciate the question, it is necessary to state
a few facts giving rise to the appeal. ·
F
The appellants are a partnership firm and at all material times
they held a stage carriage permit granted to them by the Regional
•
Transport Authority for the route Dabra-Karera via Lodi Mata
extended upto Gwalior. It appears that on 22nd June 1978 this
route for which the permit was held by the appellants was modified G
at the request of the appellants and the portion of the ·route from
Karera to Shivpuri was deleted. Thereafter by a Notification dated
4th Augnst 1978 certain routes were nationalised nnder Scheme No.
11-M which came into force with effect from ·25th September 1978
and under clause 7 (b) of this Scheme, the portion of the ronte from ·n
Shivpuri to Satanwara was deleted and the permit of the appellants
remained operative only for the .remaining portion of the route,
namely, Satanwara·Gwalior via Da.bra. 'fhis state of affairs conti·
•
292 ' • • 1#,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ti 9S4l i s.c.!l.
nued from 25th September 1978 until 18th December 1918 when the
A State Government by a Noiification issued in exercise of the powers
conferred under sub-section (2) of section 68 F of the Act made the
following modifications in the various schemes approved by it under
section 68 D sub-section (2), including Scheme No. 11-M:

B "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Scheme, . ...
tl\e private operators may be· permitted to ply stage ·
carriages for hire or reward subject to the following
cond_itions, namely : · '

(I) Whereas the notified route connects a distrl'ct' Head-
c quarter, the portion thereof covered by the permit
shall not exceed 20 kilometers and .in other cases it
shall not exceed I 0 kilometers.
I

•• D (2) The private operators shall ply the stage carriage over
the distance, other than ·the 'distance .of the notified
route, Which shall.not be less than twice the distance
of the notified route covered by the perinit;

(3) The private operators shall not pick-11p or set-down
. ..E passe~gers. on the notified route .

Since this motlification permitted plying of stage carriages by private
operators even' on. portion. of a nati9nalised route connecting
a district head-qua4er and not more than· 20 kms. in length, the
appellants made an application to the Regional Transport Authority ..
F for restoring the portion of the route from Shivpuri to Satanwara
on the ground that Shivpuri was .a district head-quarter and the
portion of the route between Shivpuri and Satanwara was less than
\ 20 kilometers. The Regional Transport Authority however tookothe
view and in our opinion rightly, that the modification made by the
. State Government in Scheme No. 11-M under the Notification dated
.G. 18th December 1978 did not have any retrospective effect and the
appellants were therefor~ not entitled to automatic restoration of the·
portion ofthe route from Shivpuri to Satanwara and in this view, the
Regional Transport. Authority rejected the application of the
appellants.·
H
The appellants thereupon filed a regular application. in the
prescribed form for e~tens1on of tht;.route specified in their permit
•
SHlY CHAND V. Jl.T.A. (Bh~gwati, J.)

from Satanwara to Sliivpurl. The application was published in the
Gazette on 11th April 1980 arid on coming to know about it, M.P.
State Road Transport Corporation which is the 2nd respondent
before us filed its ·objections against the grant of such extension.
The application together with the objections was heard by the
Regional Transport Authority and by an order dated 1lth September
.1980 the Regional Transport Authority rejected -the application on
B
two. grounds. The first ground was that "the specific order of the
State Government curtailing the Satanwara-Shivpuri portion of
applicant's permit while, approving Scheme No. 11-M cannot be
trea.ted as having been amended by the general amendment made to
the scheme" and the other was that ilo extension of the route could
be granted without following tlie procedure laid down in Section 47 c
sub~section (3) of the Act. •

This order made by the Regional Transport Authority was
. challenged by the appellants in a writ . petition filed in the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh. There were· two grounds of challenge .D
urged~·on behalf of the appellants in support of the writ petition but
we are concerned in this appeal with only one ground and .hence we .
need not refer to the other ground and burden our judgment with a
.. discussion of that ground. The ground which ~as seriously pressed
before the High Court and repeated before us was that Section 47
sub-section. {3J has "no application where what is sought by an E.
applicant is not the grant of a new permiton a specified route under
· section 48 but merely an extension of the route under -an existing
permit under sub-section. (8) of section 57 and· the order made by
the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the application of the
appellants on the ground of non;compliance with sub-Section (3) of F
section 47 was therefore plainly wrong. The appellants sought to
support th.is -ground by relying on the decision of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Dewan· Chand v_ State Transport - Authority.(')
But the learned Judge who heard the writ petition observed that the'
decision in Dewan Chand's case (supra) was contrary to the view
taken by this Court in R. Ob/iswamy Naidu v. Regional State · c;
Transport Appellate Tribunal and Delhi Transport Undertaking v.
· Zamindar Motor Transport Company(•) and held that by reason of the
express language Of sub-section (8) of sectiOI) -57 an application ft>r

(I) Misc. Petn. No. 416 ~f 1968.
(2) A.IJl. 1969 SC 1130."
(3) A.I.R. 1970 SC 466,
StJPRM COURT REPoilTS .· i1984j 1s.c.!.
. . . . ~
extension of the route specified in an existing permit was tantamoun!
A to an application for grant of a new permit and hence it was subject
to the provisions of section 47 sub-section (3) and it could not be
conoidered without following the procedure prescribed by sub-section
(3) of section 47. The learned Judge on this view rejected the writ
petition of the appellants. The appellants thereupon preferred .the
present appeal with.special leave obtained from this Court.
B
• The only question which arises for consideration in this· appeal
is as whether section 47 sub-section (3) is attracted when an appli-
•
cation is made by a holder of a permit for extension of the route
· specified in the permit. The determination of this question depends
upon a true interpretation of some of the relevant provisions of the
Act. Section 2 is the definition section and clause (28A) of this
section defines route to mean "a line of travel which specifies the
high-way which' may be traversed by a ·motor vehicle between on'e
terminus and another". Chapter IV is the only material chapter for
D our purpose. and as its beading shows, it deals with contre>I of trans·
port vehicles. Section 42 provide& tha{ no owner· of a transport
vehicle shall use or permit the use of ihe vehicle in any public place
save in accordance with the conditi.ons of a permit granted or
'
countersigned by a R;egional or State Transport Authority or the
Commission authorising the use of the vehicle in that· place in the
E manner in which the vehicle is being used. Section 43 confers certain
powers on the State Government to issue directions to the State
Transport Authority and section 44 provides for the constitution of
State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities for
each State. Section 45 specifies the authority to which an application
for a permit must be made and what particulars an application for
F a permit shall contain is prescribed in section 46. Section ·47
sub·section (I) lays down what matters shall be taken into account by
the Regional Transport Authority in considering an application for
• a stage carriage permit and various other provisions regarding
reservation of certain percentage of stage carriage permits for
Schednled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and persons belonging to
economically weaker sections of the community are made in sub•
section. (IA) to sub-section (iH) of section · 47. Then ·follows
.sub-section (3) of section 47 which is in the following terms:

H "47 (3). A Regional Transport ~uthority may, having
regard to the matters mentioned in sub-section (I) limit
the number of stage carriages generally or of:any specified
•
smv CHAND v. R.T.A. (Bhagwati, J.) 295

type for which staae carriage permit& may be granted in
the region or in any specified area or on any specified A
route within the region'."

Section 48 sub section (I) provides that, subject to the provisions
of section 47, a Regional Transport Authority" ·rnay, on an appli·
cation made to it under sectio'n 46, grant a stage carriage· permit in B
accordance with the application or with such modifications 'as it
deems fit or refose to grant such a permit, provided that no such
permission shall be granted in respect of any route or area not
specified in the application. Sub-section (3) of section 48 empowers
the Regional Transport Authority while granting a stage carriage
permit to attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions set c
·out in that sub·section. One of the conditions which may be attached
to the permit is that set out · in clause (xxi) and it reads as
follows:
•
"48(xxi) : that the Regional Transport Authority may, D
after giving notice of not less than one month-

(a) vary the conditions of the permit;

(b) attach to the permit further conditions;
...
l!l
Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance
of clause (i) shalJ not be varied· so as to alter the
distance covered by the original route by more than 24
kilometres, and any v'ariation within such limits shall be

(
made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satis·
fled that such variation will serve the public convenience
and that it is not elr.pedient to grant a separate permit in
•
respect .of the original .route as so varied or any part
thereof."
,.
Sections 49 to 51 deal with an applicatioll' for grant of contract
G
I

carriage permit while sections 52 and 53 deal 'with an application
for grant of private ca'rrier's permit. We are not concerned with
· these provisions and hence we need not refer to them. So also we
are not concerned with sections 54 to 56 which deal with · application
· for11ublic carrier's permit. Section 57 is however an important
e·
section and in its various provisions it lays down the procedure in
applyinjl for and granting permits. Sub-section (2) of· sCC!ion 57
296. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984j 1 S.C.R.
prescribes the time'within which an application for a stage carriage
A permit should be made and· sub-Sections (3) to (7) lay down the
procedure which must be followed by the Regional Transport Autho-
rity w_hile dealing with an application for a stage carriage permit made
before it. Sub:section (8) of section 57 is ~he material provision which
calls for interpretation and it runs as follows :
•
B
"-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, in,
the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the
(number of trips above the specified maximum or by
·c 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." " .,
D !fl
The argument of the respondents on these provrstons was, and
"this argument found favour with the High Court, that an application
for extension of the route specified in. a perljlit is nothing but an
application to vary the conditions of the perm it by altering the roule
covered by it and it is therefqre required by sub-section (8) of section
E 57 to be treated as an application for grant of a new permit and
hence, by reason of section 48, the grant of such an application for
extension must be held to be subject to the provisions of section 47
sub-section (3) and no such extension can be granted without follow-
ing the procedure prescribed by sub-section (3) of section 47~ The
F validity of this argument was assailed before us on behalf of the ·
.. appellants and it was contended that the fulfilment of the condition
set out in sub-section (3) of section 47 was not a part. of the proce-
dure for consideration of an application for extension of the route
•pecified in a permit and when sub-section (8) of section ~7 provided
. that such an application shall be treated as an .application for _gtant
G of a new permit, what was sought to be incorporated was merely
the procedure set out.in sub-section (3) to (7) of Section 57 and not.
pre-condition for consideration _of such an application set out in
sub-section (3) of Section (47). This contention, it was submitted
on behalf of the appellants, .was supported by. Cla~se (xxi) ot sub-
'H section (3) of Section 48, because if the condition set out in that
clause is attached to a permit, tb.e Re&ional Transport Authority can
suo inotu extend the roilte specified in the permit upto a distance of
. 29?
It..
SHIV CHAND v. R.T.A. (Bhagwati, /.)
,
24 k.ms. for serving the public convenience, without being subject
to the pfovisions of sub-section .(3) of Section 47 and if the Regional A
Transport can do so suo motu without being required to follow the
procedure of sub~section (3) of Section 47, there is no. reason why
the Regional Transport Authority should not be. entitled to do •o
on an application for extension made by the holder of the permit.
. These were the rival arguments urged on behalf of the parties and we
shall now proceed to consider them.
B

The permit held by the appellant• in the present .case, 'after
the deletion of the portion of the route from Shivpuri to Satanwara
was operative only for the remaining portion of the route. namely,
Satanwara-Gwalior via Dabra and in view of the · modification made C
iil Scheme No. 11 ·M by the notification issued by the State .Govern·
ment under section 68F sub-section (2) on 18th December, 1978,
tho appellants applied for extension of the route from Satanwara to
'Shivpuri, a distance less than 20 kilometers. The question it whether
this application could be consid~red by the Regional Transport
Authority without first determining under section 47 sub-section (3) D
the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted
for the routo ·shivpuri-Sat;nwara-Gwalior via Dabra, because if the
extension applied for were granted, that would be the route for
which the permit wo.uld be <>perative. Now, it is clear that it was .a
condition of the permit, after the deletion of the portion of the route E
from Shivpuri to Satanwira, that the appellants shall use their vehicle
or vehicles only on the route Satanwara-Gwalior via Dabra. The
.... application of the appellants for ·extension of this route by including
the portion from Shivputi 'to Satanwara was, therefore, in effeQt and
au9stance, an application for varying .this con.dition of the permit by
extending the route and it clearly fell within the terms of sub-secti9n ~ F
(8) of section 57. So far there wai no dispute between the' parties, but
at this point the agreement between the parties ended and a contro,
verly arose as to what was the consequence and effect of the applica·
,.> bility of sub-section (8) of section 57 to this application made by the
r-. appellants. There can be little doubt that under terms of sub-section G
(8) .of section 57, this application of the appellants was liable to be
"treated as an application for the grant of a new permit". But the
question is·: for what purpose and which 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 grant a H
new permit. The argument of the respondents was that no application
for grant of a new permit can be entertained by the Regional Trans· ,
port Authority 11nder section 48, unless the number of stage carriages

...
~98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS h984l 1 s.c.1..

for which permits may be granted for the particular route is first -41111
A determined 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 a ppli·
cation for grant of a new permit was that no extension could be )I
granted by the Regional Transport Authority unless the requirement
of section 47sub-section (3) ivas first complied with and the number ·'
B of stage carriages for which permits may be granted on the extended -1
ronte was determined under that provision. But we do not think this
argument is well-founded .

. It is undoubtedly true that having regard to the several
c decisions of. this Court and particularly, the decision in Mohd,
ll>rahim.v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras,( 1) the law
must now. be taken to be well·settled that ·an application for grant
. ofa new permit cannot be enteratained by the Regional Transport
Authority under section 48, unless the limit of the number of stage ·
carriages for which permits may be &ranted is first determined under
D section 47 sub-section (3) .. There are are two independent 1steps
required to be taken in connection with the grant of a permit,
the first being the determination by the Regional Transport Autho· ·
rity. under section 47 sub-section (3) of the number of stage
... -.,,

carriages for which permits may be granted and the second being
E that "thereafter applications for stage carriage permits can be· enter·
tained" and, therefore, it would f mean that befo~e an application
for grant of a permit can be entertained by the Regional Transport
Authority, there would be a determination under section 47 sub·
section (3), Ray, J., as he then was speaking on behalf of the Court
observed in Ibrahim's case (supra) :
F
' our opinion, the provisions of the Act in regard
'l!n
to stage carriage permits have the following consequences.
If the Regional Transport Authority were to appoint a ~
date for the receipt of applications for the grant of stage
carriage permits, the Regional Transport Authority should
G fix the limit of the number of permits which .might be
granted and then notify the same .under section 57 (2)
of the Act. If, on the other hand, applications were
sen~ by persons suo motu · for the grant of permit the
applications would have to be. published and the represen·
Il tations would have to be . asked for. The proviso of
•
(1) [i971) l S.C.R. 474.
•
. •
. .
SHIV CHAND v. R.T.A. (Bhagwati, J.) 299
\

section 57 (3) of the Act furnishes the answer that if the
grant of any permit in accordance with the application A,•
. would have the effect of increasing the number of permits
beyond the limit fixed under section 47. (3) of the Act,
the Regional Transport Authority might summarily refuse
the application without following the procedure laid
down in section 57 of the Act. In other cases, the proper 8
stage for fixing the limit under section 47 (3) of the Act
would be after applications are received arid betore the .
same would be published under section 57 (3) of the Act
asking for representations. If however the Regional Trans-
port Authority would not_increase or modify (the number
of permits which already. exist, the grant of an application c
would mean transgressing the limit fixed, and procedure
laid down in section 57 (3) of the Act need not than be
· followed. On the other hand, if the. Regional Transport
Authority on receipt of applications would decide· upon
the limit of permits and !he grant thereof would be with,
in the limit prescribed then the procedure laid. down in
D
section 57 (3) of the Act would be followed."

There can,· therefore, be no doubt that if an application for varyin&
the condition of a permit by extension of the route specified in the
permit were equated wholly with an application for grant of a new E
yermit and th~ permit for the extende~ route we~e to be regarded

. as a new permit, the procedure prescnbed Ill section 47 sub-section
(3) would have to be f611owed and . the number of stage carriages
for which permits may be granted on the extended route would have
to be determined before the application could be entertained by the F
Regional Transport Authority. But we do not think that the
prescription in sub-sectjon (8) of section 57 that an application· for
varying the condition of a permit 15y extension of the· route shall be
treated as an application for grant of a new permit has effect of
equating such an application with an application for grant of a new
permit for all purposes so as to ·attract the applicability of sub-section G
(3) of section ~J· Section 57 deals with the procedure. iri applying
for and granting permits and sub-section (3) to (7) Jay down the
procedure which must be followed in co~sidering and deciding, ·inter
alia, an application for grant of a stage carriage permit. Sub-section
(8) follows upon sub-section (3) to (7) and is part of the same seciton
H
• which has a definite o~ject and scheme of providing the procedure
for considering aµd granting
~ . . . an application
. '
and:thercforc,
' .
when it.
•
•
300 SUPREME COUkT IUIPORTS [1984] ! s.c.a.

' A 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 specified 'maximum 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 set out in the preceding sub- ·
B section (3) to (7) to such an application. The context in which sub-
section (8) occurs and its juxtaposition with sub-section (3) to · (7)
in section 58 clearly indicate that what is sought. to be made
applicable to an application referred to in sub-section (8) by treating
it as an application for grant of a new permit, is' the procedure set
out in sub•section (3) to (7) of section 58 and nothing more. The
c requirement spelt out in sub-section (3) of section 47 that the number
of stage carriages for which permHs may he 'granted on any parti-
cular route.must be first determined before an application for grant
of a stage carriage permit can be entertained by the Regional Trans-
port Authority under section 48, is obvi6usly not a part of the
procedure for considering an application for grant of a permit; it
D is a condition precedent before an application for grant of a permit .
can be considered and granted. This condition precedent cannot be
said to have been incorporated by reference under sub-section (8) of
section 57. An application to vary the conditions of a permit as set
out is un'doubtedly to be treated as' an application for grant of a new
E permit, but that is only. for the purpose of applying the procedure
set out in sub-section (3) to (7) of that section". It is not an appli-
cation for a new permit and .if it is granted, the permit for the
extended route does not become. a new permi~ in the· hands of the
applicant. It is the ~amc permit which now, after the granting of ...
tho application, covers the extended route. It may be possible to
F say that where a totally new route is sought to be included' by an
application to vary the conditions of a 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, though in form
an application to vary the conditions of the permit, would in effect
G and substance, be an application for grant of a new permit and in
such a case, a view may conceivably he taken with some degree of
plausibility that the number of stage carriages for which permits
may be granted on such new route should first be d~termined under
section 47 sub-section (3) before the application to vary the condi-
tions of the permit can be entertained. An applicant for a permit
on a route which is not merely technically, but in· truth and reality a
different route, distinct from the original routegnay not be permitted •
to defeat the provision enacted in section 47 sub-section (3) by
•
' . .
SHIV CHAND v. R.T.A. (Bhagwati, J.)
•, . ·.
,301

labelling his application as one for varying the conditions of the permit
and in such a case,, the procedure set out in section 47 sub-section (3) ·A·
may have to be complied with before the Regional Transport Autho-
rity can consider and grant the application. But where an application
merely seeks a short extension of the route specified in the permit as
T in the present case, it would not be appropriate to say that it is an
application for grant cif a new permit, though technically tlie · exten-
ded route may not be regarded as the same as the original route and ·· B
where such is the case, it would not be necessary 10 comply with the
procedure set ,out in sub•section (3)· of Section 47.

We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was in error
in holding that the application made by the appellants for extension
of the route specified in their permit from Satanwara to Shivpuri
c
could not M considered by the Regional Transport Authority with·
out following the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of
Section 47. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the· judgment •
of the High Court as also the order made by the Regional Transport
. Authority and remit the case back to the Regional Transport D
Authority for considering the.application of the appellants in accor-
danc.e with law in the light of the observations contained in this
judgment. There will be no order as t.o cos_ts of the appeal.

. S.R. Appeal. a/lowed. E

•

•
•

•

'.