Holding

Only the authority that granted the inter‑state permit (the U.P. State Transport Authority) has the statutory power to suspend or cancel it; the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Delhi, lacked such jurisdiction and the suspension order is void.

Summary

The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UP SRTC) challenged the suspension of its inter‑state bus permit by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Delhi, alleging that the officer lacked jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court examined whether directions issued under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution could be enforced by a police officer who was not the authority that granted the permit. It held that Section 86 of the Act confers the power to suspend or cancel a permit only on the authority that originally granted it, and that the Delhi police officer could not exercise such power despite a delegation under Rule 61‑A. The Court also clarified that Supreme Court directions are to be read in addition to, not in place of, the statutory provisions and do not create extra statutory authority. Consequently, the order suspending the permit was declared a nullity and the appeals were allowed, quashing the impugned orders.

Issues considered

The extent of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to suspend an inter‑state permit granted by the U.P. State Transport Authority under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Whether Supreme Court directions issued under Articles 32 and 142 can be enforced by authorities lacking statutory power under the Act.
The validity and scope of the delegation of suspension powers to police officers under Delhi Rule 61‑A in the context of inter‑state permits.
Whether the respondent could impound the bus under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The propriety of the High Court's order and the consequent suspension of the permit.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 207, s. 66, s. 67, s. 68, s. 71, s. 80, s. 84, s. 86, s. 88, s. 89

Subjects

inter‑state permitMotor Vehicles Actsuspension of permitjurisdictionSupreme Court directionsArticle 32Article 142delegation of powerstraffic safetypublic safetypolice authoritystatutory authorityimpounding vehicle

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 234

A U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
-~
V.
ASSISTANT COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI
Civil Appeal No. 950 Of 2009
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
B
(S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, J)
Constitution Of India, 1950:
-\ ...,
Articles 32 and 142 - Directions by Supreme Court re-
c garding observance of norms of safety on roads - lnterpreta-
tion of - HELD : the directions issued in exercise of powers
under Article 32 rlw Article 142 must be held to be in addition \..
to the conditions contained in the permit and/or the provisions
of Motor Vehicles Act and should be construed strictly - The
Court did not confer any authority upon a person who did not
D ,._,
have any such authority under the statute - Inter-State per-
mits granted pursuant to agreement between two States, can,
in the event of violation of any norms, ·be suspended/cancelled
only by the authority which granted the same and not by the
counter-signing State - Orders impugned in writ petition stand
E quashed - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 86, 88 and 207.

Article 136 - Dismissal of petition for special leave by
an unreasoned order - Held : Does not create any precedent
l·
- Precedent.
F The respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Delhi ordered suspension of the permit of a bus of the
appellant, UP State Road Transport Corporation for a pe-
riod of seven days from the date of deposit of the vehicle
for purported violation of the directions of the Supreme
1
G Court issued on 20.11.1979 with regard to observance
of norm of safety on road within NCR and NCTT, Delhi .. 'y
The writ petition of the appellant-Corporation was dis-
1
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. ( 1997) 8 SCC 770
H 234
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. 235
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI

missed by the High Court. The special appeal was also A
~ dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court tak-
ing note that in an identical matter the special leave peti-
tion had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
In the instant appeals, it was contended for the ap-
pellant Corporation that in view of the provisions of s.86 B
of the Act, the respondent not being the appropriate State
Transport Authority could not have directed impounding
of the bus and/or suspension of the permit. The stand of
; , the respondents was that the order of suspending the per-
mit was passed in compliance of the order of the Supreme c
Court, and that the Court having dismissed the special
leave petition, and the letters patent appeal having been
filed thereafter the instant appeal was not maintainable.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1 Right to ply a vehicle in terms of the provi-
-1
- sions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules framed
thereunder is a statutory right. Where a person, including
a juristic person, is conferred a right to carry on business,
regulation thereof should ordinarily be governed by the E
statute under which the permit has been granted. In view
of several decisions of this Court, even if additional regu-
latory measures are laid down, the same, should be con-
strued strictly. [Para 17] [248-8, C]
Vishaka & Ors. V State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) 6 F
sec 241 -referred to
1.2 The directions issued by this Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the
Constitution of India must be held to be in addition to the
G
conditions contained in the permit and/or the provisions
of the Act. The direction issued by tius Court upon the
authorities to ensure that the transport vehicles are not
permitted to overtake any four wheels motorized vehicle
was issued as in the view of this Court, the scheme of the
H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A Act necessarily Implied an obligation to use the vehicle in
a manner which does not imperil public safety. Clause (e) of
the order must be construed in the light of the purpose and
object for which the Act was enacted. [Para 19] [248-D, E, F]
1.3 The direction that any breach will be considered
B to be in contravention of the conditions of the permit
which could entail suspension/cancellation of the permit
. and impounding of the vehicle must be read in the light of
the provisions of the Act and not de hors the same. This
Court could not and, in fact, did not while issuing the said --\ ~

c dfrection confer a statutory authority upon a person who
did not have any such authority under the statute. An or-
der passed by an authority without jurisdiction, it is trite,
would be a nullity. It cannot be presumed that this Court
would confer jurisdiction upon an authority whose order
D would be a nullity and, thus, non-est in the eye of law.
[Para 20] [248-G, H; 249-A] ~-

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 770;
Ramesh Chand Daga v. Rameshwari Bai (2005) 4 SCC 772 -
referred to
E 1.4 The Single Judge as also the Division Bench of
the High Court misread the provisions of s.86 of the Act
to hold that respondent was clothed with the jurisdiction
of suspension and/or cancellation of the permit and im-
pounding of the vehicle in terms of the order of the Court.
F This Court had merely spelt out the consequences ema-
'•
nating from contravention of the directions. Such direc-
tions, if read with the provisions of the Act, would mean
that the procedure for suspension/cancellation of the
permit and impounding of the vehicle must be followed
G as contained in the Act. Jurisdiction for the said purpose
must be exercised by the authority under the statute. No
statutory authority can act de hors the statute. [Para 24] t
[250-C, D, E]
1.5 The width and breadth of Article 142 of the Con-
H stitution although is wide, any direction issued thereun-
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. 237
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI

derby reason of an interpretation should not be expanded.
... [Para 25] [250-E, F]
A

2.1 Section 86 of the Act, on a plain reading, clearly
confers power to suspend a permit only on the authority
which had granted it. Even the conditions therefor have
been laid down. It is not in dispute that inter-State permits B
have been granted pursuant to the agreements entered
into by and between the State of U.P. and National Capital
Territory of Delhi, Paragraph 4 whereof refers to stage
·' - ,. carriage (substantive permits), and Paragraph 14 provides
for the general powers. In terms of the Agreement also, in c
case of any violation by any driver of any vehicle for which
the permit had been granted, it is the authorities of the
State of U.P. who could take action. The rules framed by
the State of U.P. alone would be applicable in relation
thereto. Thus, Rule 64A of the Delhi Rules pursuant D
whereto or in furtherance whereof the delegation of power
""._ in favour of the respondents had been made, would not
apply. Even otherwise, the countersigning State would
not be entitled to suspend or cancel the permit of a ve-
hicle wherefor a stage carriage permit has been granted
E
by the State of U.P. [Para 28-30] [251-F, G, H; 252-A, 8, C,
D, E, F, G]
Gaja/akshmi Ammal Manonmaniammal Bus Service vs.
1; The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras & Anr. AIR
1962 MADRAS 173 and A. Annamalai vs. State Transport
F
Authority Andhra Pradesh& ors. AIR 1962 AP 148- referred to
2.2 The respondent has not exercised its jurisdiction
u/s 207 of the Act. Even the conditions precedents for ex-
ercise of the said jurisdiction did not exist in the case. If
the respondent was not entitled to pass an order suspend- G
ing the permit, the entire proceeding was vitiated in law.
---/- He could not have even issued a notice therefor. It is,
therefore, not a case where the respondent had even oth-
erwise jurisdiction to suspend a permit, but merely a
wrong provision was quoted in the notice and by reason
H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A whereof no prejudice was caused to the appellant. [Para
33] [254-G, H; 255-A, B]
~
\
2.3 In a case where exercise of jurisdiction on the
part of the statutory authority is found to be wholly ille-
gal, it cannot be said that this Court may not exercise its
B .discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Consti-
tution. By reason of the order impugned, permit of the ve-
hicle was suspended for a period of seven days. How-
ever, the said period is over. While exercising jurisdiction
u/s 207 of the Act, the respondent could not have directed ., ....
c production of the bus for the period during which the
permit was directed to be suspended. Power of deten-
tion of a vehicle, could be exercised only for a limited pur- ;-

pose. Such a power could not include a power directing
the owner of a bus to produce the offending vehicle for
D the purposes mentioned in the notice. [Para 34] [255-C,
D, E]
3. It is true that in one case the special leave petition .. ~

was dismissed. But it was an unreasoned order. It did not
create any precedent. Thus, when a Letters Patent Ap-
E peal was maintainable, the Division Bench could have
and, should have, determined the question in accordance .
with law. Violation of the directions of this Court would '-

merely entail the consequences which would mean that
the respondent could proceed to take action only in ac- .,,
F cordance with law including the provisions contained in
s.88 of the Act. Orders impugned in the writ petition will
stand quashed. [Para 25] [250-F, G, H]
Case Law Reference r
(1997) 6 sec 241 referred to para 17
G
(1997) 8 sec 110 referred to para 21
(2005) 4 sec 112 referred to para 23
AIR 1962 MADRAS 173 referred to para 31
AIR 1962 AP 148 referred to para 32
H
U.P. ·STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. 239
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 950 A
of 2008
From the final Judgement and Order dated 9.9.2005 of
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letter Patent Appeal
No. 1958 of 2005
B
Ashok K. Srivastava and lndrajeet Das, for the Appellant.
S. Wasim A. Qadri, J. Ahmad Khan and Lakshmi Raman
Singh, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by c
5.8. SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted in both the SLPs. Both the appeals are
being disposed of through this common judgment.
2. Interpretation of a judgment of this Court, vis-a-vis the D
action taken by the first respondent pursuant to or in further-
ance thereof is in question in these appeals. In the appeal aris-
ing out of SLP (C) No.2359 of 2006, the challenge is against a
judgment and order dated 9.9.2005 passed by a Division Bench
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No.1958 of 2005 E
whereby and where under a judgment and order dated 10.8.2004
passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in Civil Writ
Petition No.8339 of 2002 was upheld. The appeal arising out
of SLP (C) No.2408 of 2006 is against the order and judgment
dated 9.9.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court F
of Delhi in LPA No.1956 of 2005 confirming an order dated
17.8.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C)
"No.13688 of 2004.
3. Since the facts in both the appeals are identical and G
since the same legal questions arise in both the appeals, refer-
ence is being made to the facts in the appeal arising out of SLP
(C) No.2359 of 2006. Appellant is a Corporation constituted
and registered under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1951,
. indisputably, for the purpose of plying of buses on various routes . H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A falli~g within th~ State of Uttar Pradesh and National Capital
Tern~ory of Delhi. ~everal agreements as envisaged under sub-
~ectron (5) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here-
inafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Act')
were executed.
B
4. A Public Interest Litigation in regard to observance of
the norms b1 safety on the roads came up for consideration
before this Court in a writ petition filed by one Shri M.C. Mehta
which was registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No.13029 of 1985.
This Court in exercise of its power under Article 32 read with
C Article 142 of the Constitution of India issued the following di-
rections by an order dated 20.11.1997 :
"(a) No heavy and medium transport vehicles, and light
goods vehicles being four wheelers would be permitted to
operate on the roads of the NCR and NCTI, Delhi, unless
D
they are fitted with suitable speed control devices to ensure
that they do not exceed the speed limit of 40 KMPH. This
will not apply to transport vehicles operating on Inter-State
permits and national goods permits. Such exempted
vehicles would, however, be confined to such routes and
E such timings during day and night a~ the police/transport
· .authorities may publish. It is made clear.that no vehicle
would be permitted on roads other than the aforementioned
exempted roads or during the times other than aforesaid
time without a speed control device.
F
(b) In our view the scheme of the Act necessarily implies
an obligation to use the vehicle in a manner which does
notimperil public safety. The authorities aforesaid should..
_._
therefore, ensure that the transport vehicles are not"
permitted to overtake any other four-wheel motorized
G
. vehicle.
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Any breach of the aforesaid directions by any person
would, apart form entailing other legal consequences, be
H
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V 241
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI [S.B. SINHA, J.]

dealt with as contravention of the conditions of the permit A
which could entail suspension /cancellation of the permit
and impounding of the vehicle.
xxx xxx xxx
The Government is directed to notify under section 86(4) s
the officers of the rank of Assistant Commissioners of
Police or above so that these officers are also utilized for
constituting the flying squads.
xxx xxx xxx
c
B. We direct the Union of India to ensure that the contents
of this Order are suitably publicized in the print as well as
the electronic media not later than November 22, 1997 so
that every body is made aware of the directions contained
in the Order. Such publication would be sufficient public
0
notice to all concerned for due compliance.
C. We, direct that this Order will be carried out
notwithstanding any other order or directions by any
authority, Court or Tribunal, and that no authority shall
interfere with the functioning of the police and transport E
department in so far as implementation and execution of
these directions is concerned."
5. In the first appeal, a bus of the appellant Corporation
bearing Registration No.UP 14 Q 8755, driven by one Shri Shiv
Lal was found overtaking another four wheel vehicle bearing F
Registration No. DL 1 LO 6452 and, thus, purported to have
violated the conditions as enshrined in the directions of this
Court. A proceeding under Sections 3/181, 66(i)/92A of the Act
was initiated.
G
In the said proceeding, fine of Rs.300/- was imposed .
..J, 6. Respondent, as a purported consequence of the pen-
alty imposed upon the driver of the said vehicle, initiated a pro-
ceeding under Section 86 of the Act, directing :
H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A "NOW THEREFORE, l.K.S. Bedi, Assistant Commissioner
of Police/Traffic/East district, Delhi in exercise of powers
delegated to me u/s read with 86(4) of M.V.Act, 1988 by
STA Delhi vide its Board Resolution No.1/98, dated
25.5.1998 hereby require General Manager s/o Shri Nil
B Rio UPSRTC, Lucknow, U.P. the permit holder top show
cause as to why the said permit should not be suspended
for a period of one month for the above mentioned
violations. Your reply, if any, should reach the undersigned
within a period of 7 days from the date of the show cause
\~
notice, failing which, it will be presumed that you have
c nothing to say and the case will be decided ex parte on
merits.
You are also at liberty to appear before the undersigned
within the stipulated period to make personal submissions,
D if any, in this regard."
7. By reason of an order dated 20.12.2002, the permit t
~
was suspended, stating:
"AND WHEREAS, it is evident from the record brought up
-E before the ~ndersigned and submission that the permit
holder has violated the, permit conditions as enshrined in
the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case
of M.C.Mehta vs. UOI. It is also evident that the permit

F
holder has ignored the safety of the public on road and
failed to exercise such supervision as was necessary on ...
his employees as a result of which the vehicle violated the
~
permit conditions, provisions of MV Act framed there under
to the extent that the vehicle was being driven _in such a
way which has d~ngerous for the public safety.
.,.
I
G NOW THEREFORE, keeping in view all the facts of the ~
case, reply of the show cause notice s'ubmitted by the
permit holder on one hand and on the other hand going \,.-
through the STA Board Resolution, permit conditions
mentioned in the brochure and directions of Hon'ble
H Supreme Court of India in case of M.C.Mehta vs. UOI, I,
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. 243
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI [S.B. SINHA, J.]
~+
K.S.Bedi, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Traffic, East A
Distt. Delhi in exercise of powers under section 86 of
M.V.Act, 1988 and delegated to me vide STA Board
Resolution No.1/98 dated 25.5.1998 do hereby suspend
the permit No. of UP-14R-7231 of the said vehicle for a
period of [7] seven days from the date of depositing the B
vehicle at Burari Pit (STA),Delhi within 3 days positively
and receipt be submitted in this office alongwith the original
, permit of the vehicle which will be kept on the file till the
' expiry of suspension period."
8. A writ petition was filed thereagainst by the appellant. A c
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, by an order dated
10.8.2004, having regard to the directions issued by this Court
on 20.11.1997, refused to interfere with the said order dated
20.12.2002, stating:
t "Learned counsel for the respondent states that in fact the
D
petitioner has not surrendered the bus in pursuance to the
order for suspension of the licence. It is seen from the
order-sheet that there is no interim relief granted in favour
of the petitioner. If the Petitioner has failed to comply with
the directions for suspension of the permit/licence, it is E
open to the respondent to take appropriate measures not
only to enforce the said order but to take further action
against the petitioner for not having complied with
directions passed by the respondents."
F
9. Without preferring a Letters Patent Appeal t~ereagainst,
a Special Leave Petition was filed. The same was dismissed
as withdrawn. Thereafter a Letters Patent Appeal was filed
against the said order dated 10.8.2004. It is, however, stated
that another special leave petition filed in identical matter was
G
-1- dismissed.
to. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said appeal
has been dismissed by the High Court.
11. Mr. Ashok Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on
H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A behalf of the appellant urged that having regard to the provi-
sions of Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the respondent,
not being the appropriate State Transport Authority, could not
have directed impounding of the bus and/or suspension of the
permit.
8 It was urged that as the State of UP has entered into a
mutual agreement with the National Capital Territory of Delhi in
regard to the plying of buses in the National Capital region, the
terms and conditions laid down therein being binding on both
the parties in the event of any violation of any provisions of the
C Motor Vehicles Act, the rules framed thereunder or the condi-
tions of permit, the rules applicable to the State of U.P. shall be
attracted. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would contend
in relation to a inter-State permit, the State which had merely
countersigned could only withdraw the same but would have no
D · jurisdiction to cancel or suspend the permit as such.
12. Mr. Qadri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, on the other hand would contend :
1) The order dated 20.12.2000 having been passed in
E compliance of this Court's order, the impugned judgment of the
High Court should not be interfered with.
2) This Court, having dismissed the special leave petition
whereafter only a letters patent appeal was filed, the present
appeal is not maintainable.
F
13. The National Capital Territory of Delhi, in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 86(4) of the Act, having delegated
its power to various police authorities, the respondent had the
requisite jurisdiction to pass an order suspending the permit in
G terms thereof. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to
Rule 61-A as inserted by Notification dated 19.5.1998, which .\--
reads as under:
"'DELEGATION OF POWERS FOR SUSPENSION OF
PERMIT: The State Transport Authority may by general or
H special resolution recorded in its proceedings and subject
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V 245
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI [S.B. SINHA, J.]

,..~
to the restrictions, limitation and conditions that it may A
impose, delegate to Group 'A' and Group ·s· Gazetted
Officers, its powers under section 86 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 to suspend a permit or to recover from the
holder thereof a sum of money agreed upon in accordance
with sub-section (5) of section 86 of the Motor Vehicles B
Act, 1988.
Provided that the State Transport Authority may delegate
~- its powers as mentioned hereinabove by specifying the
"'
designation of the officer(s) and the name of the
Government department/branch in which the said officer c
(s) may be serving if it is necessary to do so."
14. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance therof, the State
Transport Authority had delegated its power in favour of the re-
spondent in terms of a circular letter dated 23.9.1998 contain-
D
1I ing the resolution passed by the Authority. Respondent, even
otherwise, having regard to the provisions of Section 207 of the
Act had the requisite jurisdiction to detain the bus. Respondent
having the requisite power to suspend the operation of permit
granted by the U.P. State Transport Authority even if a wrong
provision had been maintained, it need not be held that the im- E
pugned order is wholly without jurisdiction.

--~
15. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the
law relating to motor vehicles. Chapter V of the Act deals with
control of transport vehicles. Section 66 of the Act provides for F
the necessity-of permits stating that no owner of a motor vehicle
shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle
actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance
with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a
Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed author-
G
ity authorizing him the use' of the vehicle in that place in the
manner in which the vehicle is used. The power to control Road
Transport Corporation is vested in the State under Section 67
of the Act. Section 68 provides for constitution of Transport Au-
thorities. Section 71 provides for the procedure of Regional
H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A Transport Authority in the matter of considering application for 1--
stage carriage permit. Section 72, inter alia, provides for any
or more of the conditions as stated in sub-section (2) of Sec-
tion 72 to be attached to the permit. Section 80 provides for the
procedure of filing of application for and grant of permits. Sec-
8 tion 84 provides for general conditions attaching to .all permits.
Section 86 deals with cancellation and suspension of permits,
sub-section (1) whereof reads as under:
"Section 86 - Cancellation and suspension of
permits.-(1) The transport authority which granted a
c ·permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such
period as it thinks fit-
(a) on the breach of any condition specified in section 84
or of any condition contained in the permit, or
D (b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows
a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the
permit, or
(c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle
covered by the permit, or
E
(d) if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by
fraud or misrepresentation, or
(e) if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without
reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for
F which the permit was granted, or
(f) if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of
any foreign country:
Provided that no permit shall be suspended or cancelled
G. unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the
permit to furnish his explanation."
Section 88 of the Act provides for validation of permits for
use outside the region for which it is granted. Sub-Section
(4) thereof reads as under :
H
•
I

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. 247
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI [S.S. SINHA, J.]

~~ "(4) The provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, A
revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the
grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of
permits:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the
procedure laid down in Section 80 for the grant of B
countersignatures of permits, where the permits granted
in any one State are required to be countersigned by the
.~ 1-
State Transport Authority of another State or by the
Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any
agreement arrived at between the States after complying c
with the requirements of sub-section (5)."

Sub-sections (5), (6), (7) and (8) of Section 88 lay down
the procedure or provide for entering into the agreements be-
tween the States to fix the number of permits. D
~
~

Section 89 of the Act provides for an appeal from such an
order wherefor the State Government is required to constitute
Transport Appellate Tribunals in such numbers as it thinks fit.

Section 207 of the Act authorises any police officer to seize E
and detain any motor vehicle in the event he has reason to be-
lieve that it has been or was being used in contravention of the
-f provisions of section 3 or section 4 or section 39 or without the
permit required. by sub-section (1) of section 66 or in contra-
vention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on F
which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle
may be used in the prescribed manner and for the said pur-
pose to take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider
proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle.

16. The directions issued by this Court in exercise of its G
-./ jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Consti-
tution of India must be held to be in addition to the conditions
contained in the permit and/or the provisions of the Act.

17. Regulation of motor vehicles is vested in the State and/
H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 s,c.R.

A or statutory authorities. Ordinarily, they should exercise their
power within the four corners thereof.
Right to ply a vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Act
or the Rules framed thereunder is a statutory right. Where a
person, including a juristic person, is conferred a right to carry
B
·on business, regulation thereof should ordinarily be governed
by the statute under which the permit has been granted. Although
in view of several decisions of this Court and, in particular,
Vishaka & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(1997) 6 SCC + "'
241], even if additional regulatory measures are laid down, the
c same, in our opinion, should be construed strictly.

18. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legal principles,
we may now consider the effect of the directions issued by this
Court.
D 19. Paragraph 'A' of the directions has been issued upon
the Police and all other authorities entrusted with the adminis-
.'!-
tration and enforcement of the Act and generally with the control
of the traffic. The direction upon the authorities to ensure that
the transport vehicles are not permitted to overtake any four
E wheels motorized vehicle was issued as in the view of this Court,
the scheme of the Act necessarily implied an obligation to use
the vehicle in a manner which does not imperil public safety.
Clause (e) of the order must be construed in the light of the
,..
purpose and object for which the Act was enacted.
F
20, The direction that any breach will be considered to be
in contravention of the conditions of the permit which could en-
tail suspension/cancellation of the permit and impounding of
the vehicle must be read in the light of the provisions of the Act
and not de hors the same. This Court could not and, in fact, did
G
not while issuing the said direction confer a statutory authority
~
upon a person who did not have any such authority under the
statute. An order passed by an authority without jurisdiction, it is
trite, would be a nullity. It would, therefore, be preposterous to
presume that this Court would confer jurisdiction upon an au-
H
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. 249
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI [S.B. SINHA, J.]
----+ thority whose order would be a nullity and, thus, non est in the A
eye of law.
21. The aforementioned directions must be construed hav-
ing regard to the reasons assigned in support thereof. This Court
analysed each of the relevant chapters and the provision of the
Act. It considered a proposal made by the Transport Commis- B
sioner whereby maximum punishment was proposed to be
raised. It, in the aforementioned backdrop, took into consider-
',J. t
ation the realities and chaotic state of road traffic in National
Capital Region and National Capital Territory of Delhi. Refer-
ring to Section 207 of the Act which empowers any police of- c
ficer or other person authorised in this behalf, to detain vehicles
used without certificate of registration permit etc., it was opined:
"In our opinion, the existing provisions in the Act alone are
1 sufficient to clothe the members of the police force and
D
~
the transport authorities with ample powers to control and
regulate the traffic in an appropriate manner so that no
vehicle being used in a public place poses any d~mger to
the public in any form. The requirement of maintaining the
motor vehicles in the manner prescribed and its use if
roadworthy in a manner which does not endanger the E
public, has to be ensured by the authorities and this is the
-~ aim of these provisions enacted in the Act. As earlier stated,
we reach this conclusion even without reference to the
general powers available to the police officers under the
Police Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure." F
{See M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. [(1997) 8 SCC
770]}.
22. What was emphasized is that empowerment of the
' -4 authority. Such empowerment must be within the broad frame- G
work of the Act. The judge made law In an area covered by the
Parliamentary Act should not be applied in an expansive man-
ner. Nothing should be deduced therefrom.
23. A decision is an authority, it is trite, for which it decides
H
-,...--

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. This whole- +--
some principle is equally applicable in the matter of construe-
ti6n of a judgment. A judgment is not to be construed as a stat-
ute. It must be construed upon reading the same as a whole.
For the said purpose, the attending circumstances may also be
B taken into consideration. {See Ramesh Chand Dag a v.
Rameshwari Bai [(2005) 4 SCC 772]}.
24. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge as also the
+ :...
Division Bench of the High Court did not pose unto themselves
the correct question(s). It misread the provisions of Section 86
c to hold that respondent was clothed with the jurisdiction of sus-
pension and/or cancellation of the permit and impounding of
the vehicle in terms of the order of the Court. This Court had
merely spelt out the consequences emanating from contraven-
tion of the directions. Such directions, if read with the provi-
~-
D sions of the Act, would mean that the procedure for suspension/
cancellation of the permit and impounding of the vehicle must
be followed as contained in the Act. Jurisdiction for the said
purpose must be exercised by the authority under the statute.
No statutory authority, whether empowered by this Court or oth-
E erwise, can act de hors the statute.
25. The width and breadth of Article 142 of the Constitu-
tion although is wide, any direction issued thereunder by rea- )·
son of an interpretation should not be expanded. The learned
Single Judge of the Delhi High Court did precisely this. The
F Division Bench unfortunately did not consider this aspect of the
matter. It is true that in one case the Special Leave Petition was
dismissed. But it was an unreasoned order. It did not create
any precedent. Thus, when a Letters Patent Appeal was main-
tainable, the Division Bench could have and, in our opinion,
G should have determined the question in accordance with law. ~
We, therefore, are of the opinion that violation of the directions
of this Court would merely entail the consequences which would
mean that the respondent could proceed to take action only in
accordance with law including the provisions contained in Sec-
H tion 88 of the Act.
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. 251
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI [S.B. SINHA, J.]
26. Indisputably, the Lieutenant Governor of National Capi- A
tal Territory of Delhi inserted Rule 61-A in the Rules by reason
whereof the State Transport Authority had been vested with the
power to delegate its powers in favour of any other authority. A
purported resolution was passed by the State Transport Authority
which is to the following effect: B
"Now that the necessary rule has been gazetted it is
proposed that the power to suspend permits under section
86 may now be delegated in accordance with Rule 61-A
~
f of the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 to officers of the
category that were empowered vide Resolution no.28/ c
1997 dated 21-11-1997 subject to the condition that the
delegation shall be liable to be reviewed from time to time
and also subject to the limitation that the power to charge
compounding fees in lieu of suspension in case of fatal
accidents by stage carriage buses shall be exerciseable D
.., by officers of the level of Deputy Director and above of the
~
Transport Department only in accordance with the
procedure laid down vide resolution no.3/1997 dated 2-4-
1997."
27. Vires of the said delegation not being under challenge, E
we would assum.e the same to be valid. The question, however,
is as to whether even in terms of the said delegated power, the
respondent could direct suspension of permit of a bus belong-
-f ing to appellant and in respect whereof inter-State permit had
been granted by the U.P. State Transport Authority. F

28. Section 86 of the Act, dn a plain reading, clearly con-
fers power to suspend a permit only on the authority which had
granted it. Even the conditions therefor have been laid down.
29. It is not in dispute that inter-State permits have been G
granted pursuant to the agreements entered into by and be-
~ tween the State of U.P. and National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Mr. Srivastava has placed before us a sample copy of the Agree-
ment. Paragraph 4 of the said Agreement refers to stage car-
riage (substantive permits). Paragraph 14 of the said Agree- H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A ment provides for the general powers. We may refer to some of
the clauses thereof:
"(ii) Permits. issued within the terms of reciprocal
agreement shall be countersigned immediately on
presentation before the Regional Transport Authority or
B the State Transport Authority subject to payment of
countersignature fee and other taxes due to that State.
(iv) Except as provided otherwise in the agreement, the
vehicles of the one reciprocating State plying in the other
c State shall be governed by the rules, other than the
provisions relating to payment of taxes and fees, and fare
of the State which granted the permit.
(v) Before any action is taken for breach of the provisions
of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the Rules framed
D thereunder against the State Transport Undertakings of
the reciprocating State a prior reference to the Head of ...
the State Transport Undertaking concerned shall be made t

in order to decide if departmental action would not be
adequate instead of prosecuting them in the Court of Law."
E 30. In terms of the aforementioned Agreement also, thus,
in case of any violation by any driver of any vehicle for which
such carriage permit had been granted, it is the authorities of
the State of U.P. who could take action. The rules framed by the
State of U.P. alone would be applicable in relation thereto. Thus, )-
F Rule 64A of the Delhi Rules pursuant whereto or in furtherance
whereof the delegation of power in favour of the respondents
had been made, would not apply. Even otherwise, the counter-
sign.ing State would not be entitled to suspend or cancel the
permit of a vehicle wherefor a stage carriage permit has been
G granted by the State of U.P.
31. The question came up for consideration before a Divi- ,.._
sion Bench of the Madras High Court in Gajalakshmi Ammal
Manonmaniammal Bus Service vs. The State TransportAppel-
H late Tribunal. Madras & Anr. [AIR 1962 MADRAS 173] wherein
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V 253
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI [S.B. SINHA, J.]
interpreting the provisions of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles A
~-~ Act, 1939 which is in pari materia with Section 86 of the Act, it
was held:
"(3) There can be no doubt that overloading of passengers
in a stage carriage is a breach of the conditions of the
permit. Section 63 relates to the issue of permits over B
inter-district routes. Sub-section (1) of that section provides
that a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority
of one region could be valid for another region, if the
... -j ':"egional Transport Authority of the latter region counter-
signs the permit. It follows from the provisions of the section c
that the original or primary permit is granted under S.60
and that S.63 (1) only provides for its validation by a
counter-signature. Section 63 (3) only means that the power
of suspension would apply even in regard to breach of a
condition with respect to inter district permits, i.e., it confers D
a power on the authority granting the primary permit to
1• take cognizance of offences in the course of the route,
even though such route is outside his jurisdiction and to
cancel or suspend the permit, if there is a breach of any
condition relating to the same. We are therefore of opinion
E
that the Regional Transport Authority of North Arcot, who
issued the original permit, had jurisdiction to impose
punishment in respect of the breach of the conditions of
the permit, even if any such breach took place in the South
·i , Arcot Dt."
F
32. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Annamalai vs. State Trans-
~ortAuthoritv Andhra Pradesh & ors. [AIR 1962 AP 148] wherein
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. (as His Lordship then was) held :
"From a reading of this section it is seen that where the G
vehicle is to be used in two or more regions in the same
4 State, that authority is given jurisdiction in which the majority
of the route is to be operated, or if the route is equally
divided between two regions in the same state, that
authority has jurisdiction where the vehicle is kept. When H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A it comes to the jurisdiction of the authority where the vehicle
is plying between two States, the Legislature has vested +-
jurisdiction in that authority where the applicant resides or
has his principal place of business. There is a clear
indication in this section to vest the jurisdiction in that
B authority which has control over the applicant by reason of ,__
his being domiciled within that state.
r
The counter signature by the countersigning authority under
S.42 is dependent upon the grant of the primary permit. If
the permit is cancelled by the primary authority, the vehicle -)- ~~
c cannot possibly be plied in the region of the countersigning
authority; but if the countersignature is cancelled for any
breach of the conditions imposed by the countersigning F:
authority, the vehicle can be plied up·that region. In such '
circumstances, therefore, the anomaly to which the learned
advocate for the petitioner has adverted does not in fact
I
D t=
exist because, for the breach of any independent
y
conditions imposed by the countersigning authority which
' • I
conditions are not the conditions imposed by the primary ;).-

authority, it is only the countersigning authority that can
cancel the counter signature. But if the conditions of the
E permit issued by the primary authority are merely counter ~-

signed, then the jurisdiction.to cancel the permit for any \,-

breaci 1 of the conditions in the region of the counter signing
authority would vest in the primary authority also because t=
such suspension or cancellation would be the only effective 't-
F method of control over such stage carriage permit holder.
The cancellation of the counte(signature, as we have
already indicated, would be ineffective."
33. Submission of Mr. Qadri that action could have been
taken by the respondent in exercise of its power under other
G provisions of the Act, in particular Section 207 thereof, cannot
be accepted. The respondent has not exercised its jurisdiction
~
under Section 207. Even the conditions precedents for exer-
cise of the said jurisdiction did not exist in the case. If the re-
spondent for the reasons stated hereinbefore was not entitled
H to pass an order suspending the permit, the entire proceeding
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. 255
(
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI [S.B. SINHA, J.]

was vitiated in law. It could not have even issued a notice there- A
____, for. It is, therefore, not a case where the respondent had even
otherwise jurisdiction to suspend a permit but merely a wrong
provision was quoted in the notice and by reason whereof no
prejudice was caused to appellant.
34. For the self same reasons, submission of .Mr. Qadri B
that if the impugned order is set aside, the same shall give rise
to another illegal order is also without any force. Respondent
.. has exercised its jurisdiction on a wrong premise. It will be a
1
·+ ... repetition to state that it was not a case where jurisdiction un-
....==t der the provisions of Section 207 or any other provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act could be exercised. In a case of this nature
c
where exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the statutory author-
ity is found to be wholly illegal, we are not in a position to agree
with the submission of Mr. Qadri that this Court may not exer-
cise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Con-
D
stitution of India. It is really a matter of some surprise to us that
1 such a contention has been raised by a State against a State.
By reason of the order impugned, permit of the vehicle was sus-
pended for a period of seven days. However, the said period is
over. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 207 of the Act,
the respondent could not have directed production of the bus E
for the period during which the permit was directed to be sus-
pended. Power of detention of a vehicle, as noticed hereinbe-
fore, could be exercised only for a limited purpose. Such a power
-#
could not include a power directing the owner of a bus to pro-
duce the offending vehicle for the purposes mentioned in the F
~,
notice.
...
35. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned ju-dg-
ment cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly. The
appeals are allowed and consequently the orders impugned in
the writ petitions will stand quashed. There shall, however, be G

~
no order as to costs.

- R.D. Appeal Allowed.