Skip to content


Abdul Majid Vs. State Transport Authority, M.P., Gwalior and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Petn. No. 845 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1973MP213; 1973MPLJ544
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 57, 58, 62(1) and 63(3)
AppellantAbdul Majid
RespondentState Transport Authority, M.P., Gwalior and ors.
Appellant AdvocateV.S. Dabir and ;P.C. Pathak, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateS.Q. Hasan, Adv. for Respondent No. 4
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 4 failed to apply simultaneously for renewal of the counter-signature of his permit, his application for grant of renewal of the permit before the state transport authority was not an application in the eye of law and during the pendency of such an application, he had no right to claim the grant of a temporary permit for the route under section 62 (1) (d) of the act. 5. before we proceed to decide the point raised, it is better to refer to the relevant sections of the act. but it is contended that his failure to apply for renewal of counter-signature of his permit was fatal as the procedure for such an application is the same as for an application for renewal of a permit......under section 58 of the motor vehicles act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the act) to the state transport authority which had granted the said permit. no application for renewal of counter-signature of the permit was made either before the state transport authority or before the regional transport authority. jhansi (uttar pradesh). since the application for grant of renewal of the permit was not disposed of before the expiry of the permit. respondent no. 4 applied for grant of a temporary permit for 4 months under section 62 (1) (d) of the act before the state transport authority. section 62 (11 (d) of the act reads as under:'section 62. temporary permits.-- (1) a regional transport authority may without following the procedure laid down in section 57. grant permits, to be.....
Judgment:

Tankha, J.

1. This is a writ petition filed by petitioner Abdul Majid for issue of a writ of certiorari for the purpose of quashing the order dated 5-10-1972 passed by the Secretary. State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh, in favour of respondent No. 4 of the inter-State route Mahoba-Jhansi.

2. The petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit for Jhansi-Mahoba route as nominee of Uttar Pradesh; while respondent No. 4 is holding a permit for Mahoba-Jhansi route as nominee of Madhya Pradesh. They are operating their services on the basis of a reciprocal agreement entered into between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Uttar Pradesh. The permit of respondent No. 4 was valid upto 21-10-1972. He applied for grant of renewal of his permit on 26-6-1972 under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the State Transport Authority which had granted the said permit. No application for renewal of counter-signature of the permit was made either before the State Transport Authority or before the Regional Transport Authority. Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh). Since the application for grant of renewal of the permit was not disposed of before the expiry of the permit. respondent No. 4 applied for grant of a temporary permit for 4 months under Section 62 (1) (d) of the Act before the State Transport Authority. Section 62 (11 (d) of the Act reads as under:

'Section 62. Temporary permits.-- (1) A Regional Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 57. grant permits, to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorise the useof a transport vehicle temporarily--

(a)**** ****(b)**** ****(c)**** ****(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit; and may attach to any such permit any condition it thinks fit.........'

The Secretary, State Transport Authority, under his delegated power, granted a temporary permit in favour of respondent No. 4 for the route for the period22-10-1972 to 21-2-1973 vide his order dated 5-10-1972.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since respondent No. 4 failed to apply simultaneously for renewal of the counter-signature of his permit, his application for grant of renewal of the permit before the State Transport Authority was not an application in the eye of law and during the pendency of such an application, he had no right to claim the grant of a temporary permit for the route under Section 62 (1) (d) of the Act. The act of the Secretary. State Transport Authority in granting the temporary permit under that provision was thus wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 on the other hand, contended that his application for grant of renewal of his permit was a valid application in spite of the fact that he had not made an application for renewal of counter-signature of his permit, because, in view of the provisions of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 63 of the Act, no application for renewal of counter-signature was necessary in the present case where the permit had been granted and held on the basis of a reciprocal agreement. The grant of temporary permit was in accordance with law and no error of jurisdiction had been committed by the authority granting it.

4. Having heard learned counselfor both parties, we are of opinion that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force and this petition must be dismissed.

5. Before we proceed to decide the point raised, it is better to refer to the relevant sections of the Act. Section 46 of the Act deals with particulars which shall be contained in an application for stage carriage permit. Section 47 deals with matters which must be considered by the granting authority while considering such an application. Section 48 deals with the powers of the granting authority while granting a stage carriage permit. Section 57 relates to the procedure in applying for a permit and also the procedure to be followed in granting the same by the authority. Section 58 prescribes duration (period) for which a permit can be granted and also provides for the procedure for renewal of permits. Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Act reads as under:

'A permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit:

Provided that the application for the renewal of a permit shall be made,--

(a) in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, notless than one hundred and twenty days before the date of its expiry; and

(b) in any other case not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry:

Provided further that, other conditions being equal, an application for renewal shall be given preference over new applications for permits.' For validation of permits for use outside region in which (sic) granted Section 63 of the Act contains the procedure. Sub-section (1) of Section 63 reads as under:

'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 counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless counter-signed by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned:

Provided that a private carrier's permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region with the approval of the State Transport Authority, for any area in any other region or regions within the same State shall be valid in that area without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each of the other regions concerned:

Provided further that where both the starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does not exceed sixteen kilometres, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been counter-signed by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State.'

6. It is not disputed that the application for renewal of the permit made by respondent No. 4 before the State Transport Authority. Madhya Pradesh, was not in accordance with Section 58 of the Act. But it is contended that his failure to apply for renewal of counter-signature of his permit was fatal as the procedure for such an application is the same as for an application for renewal of a permit. If renewal of an inter-Statal permit is sought, the holder must also apply simultaneously for renewal of counter-signature of the permit, otherwise, in the absence of renewal of counter-signature, he would not be able to operate his permit for the route in viewof the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act. It is no doubt, true that to an application for grant of counter-signature of a permit the procedure relating to grant of permits is applicable, as is clear from Sub-section (3) of Section 63 of the Act. which reads as follows:

'The provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of counter-signatures of permits:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 57 for the grant of counter-signatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one State are required to be counter-signed by the 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 with the requirements of subsection (3A). or for the grant of counter-signatures of permits in pursuance of any direction issued by the Commission under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 63-A.'

It necessarily follows that the procedure, which is applicable to renewal of permits is also applicable to renewal of counter-signature of permits. Section 58 (2) of the Act in terms lays down that a permit may be renewed on an application made and dispoesd of as if it were an application for a permit. But then the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 63 of the Act lays down that It shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 57 for the grant of counter-signatures of permits, where the permits granted in any on* State are required to be counter-signed by the State Transport Authority of another State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the States. It is not disputed here that respondent No. 4 is holding a permanent stage carriage permit for the route as nominee of the State of Madhya Pradesh on the basis of a reciprocal agreement arrived at between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. In such a case. ac-. cording to the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 63 of the Act, the procedure laid down under Section 57 of the Act, which includes also the making of an application for the grant, has been dispensed with that is to say, no application would be necessary for securing counter-signature of the permit by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of the other concerned State, It follows that no application was required for renewal ofcounter-signature of the permit which is granted on the basis of an agreement arrived at between the two States. The effect of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 63 is that when there is an inter-State agreement. the counter-signature of permit cannot be opposed and so cannot be refused. No application for renewal of counter-signature was thus required to be made by respondent in respect of his permit. His application for renewal of his permit, which was pending for consideration before the State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh, was thus a valid application. Consequently, respondent No. 4 had the right to apply for a temporary permit under Section 62 (1) (d) of the Act; and the temporary permit granted to him was correctly granted. We are informed that this permit has also been counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jhansi.

7. For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150/- if certified. The balance of the security deposited, if any left after payment of the costs, shall be refunded to the petitioner.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //