Skip to content


Bhupendrasingh Vs. R.T.A. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petn. No. 1092 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Raj97
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 50
AppellantBhupendrasingh
RespondentR.T.A. and ors.
Appellant Advocate B.L. Maheshwari,; R.R. Vyas and B. Advani, Advs.
Respondent Advocate R.N. Munshi and; J.G. Chhangani, Advs. and; D.S. Shishod
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - section 50 of the act clearly makes the provision for the persons, who can make the representations and what representations can be made......authority issued a notification dated may 15, 1981, whereby, the applications were invited for the grant of contract carriage permits up to 5-6-1981. the applications were required to be presented to the secretary of the regional transport authority. the applications were to be considered on 8-6-1981 at 11 a. m. by the member of the regional transport authority. it may be stated that the petitioner did not hold any contract carriage permit.3. mr. j. g. chhangani, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 to 11 raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the petition by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to raise any objection against the grant of contract carriage permits and as such he has no right or locus standi to move this court under article.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.C. Jain, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner holds a non-temporary stage carriage permit over the route Hanumangarh Town-Hanumangarh Junction Municipal Area City Bus route validly renewed up to 19-1-1984. The Member of the Regional Transport Authority issued a notification dated May 15, 1981, whereby, the applications were invited for the grant of contract carriage permits up to 5-6-1981. The applications were required to be presented to the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority. The applications were to be considered on 8-6-1981 at 11 a. m. by the Member of the Regional Transport Authority. It may be stated that the petitioner did not hold any contract carriage permit.

3. Mr. J. G. Chhangani, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 11 raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the petition by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to raise any objection against the grant of contract carriage permits and as such he has no right or locus standi to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Mr. R. R. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner holds a non-temporary stage carriage permit over the route in question. If anyone is granted a contract carriage permit over the same route, the petitioner's rights would be affected so he is very much aggrieved and very much interested in the matter and as such, he has a right of representation against the applications for the grant of contract carriage perimts. He pointed out that under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), there is no prohibition that a person holding a non-temporary carriage permit is dabarred from making any representation or raising any objectionagainst the applications for the grant of contract carriage permits. He urged that Section 50 of the Act should be so construed so that such a prohibition may not be read in it, else the rights of the holders of non-temporary stage carriage permit would seriously be prejudiced as they would not be heard. For the construction of Section 50 of the Act, Mr. Vyas referred to the provision contained in Section 64 (1) (f) of the Act. He submitted that under Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 64, a right of appeal is conferred on any local authority or police authority or an association or any person providing transport facilities, who has opposed the grant of a permit. Even when, there may be no right to oppose the permit, still if any of the authorities or persons stated in Clause (f) have opposed the grant of a permit, then they have been conferred a right of appeal. It was urged that the petitioner would have opposed the grant of contract carriage permit at the time when the applications were to be considered on 8-6-1981. But the petitioner was deprived to raise the objections. Had he raised the objections on the appointed date then under Section 64 (1) (f), a right of appeal would have arisen in favour of the petitioner. How far Section 64 (1) (f) may be relevant for the purpose of construing Section 50 of the Act, would be presently seen.

5. The main question that arises for consideration is as to whether there is any scope for construing Section 50 of the Act, in the manner as suggested by Mr. Vyas, from the language of Section 50 of the Act itself or even with the assistance of Section 64 (1) (f) of the Act. Section 50 of the Act runs as under:--

'50. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for contract carriage permit,-- A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a contract carriage permit, have regard to the extent to which additional contract carriages may be necessary or desirable in the public interest; and shall also take into consideration any representations which may then be made or which may previously have been made by persons already holding contract carriage permits in the region or by any local authority or police auuthority in the region to the effect that the number of contract car-riages for which permits have already been granted is sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region or any area within the region.'

6. Section 50 deals with the procedure that the Regional Transport Authority is required to follow for consideration of the applications for grant of contract carriage permits. Section 57 of the Act is a general provision laying down the procedure for grant of permits. Section 57 (1) of the Act only provides that an application for a contract carriage permit or a private carriage permit may be made at any time.

7. A perusal of Section 50 of the Act will show that the Regional Transport Authority is required to take into consideration, any representations which may then be made or which may previously have been made by persons already holding contract carriage permits in the region or by any local authority or police authority in the region. This part of Section 50 of the Act specifically provides as to who can make the representations. The representations could be made at the time of consideration of the applications or prior to it. Section 50 of the Act further provides that the representations can be made to the effect that the number of contract carriages for which permits have already been granted is sufficient or in excess of the needs of the region or any area of the region. Section 50 of the Act clearly makes the provision for the persons, who can make the representations and what representations can be made. It is significant to note that there is no residuary or general clause, after specifying the persons or the two authorities, which can make representations i.e. Section 50 of the Act does not provide any such clause whereby any other aggrieved persons are given a right to make the representation. It cannot be conceived that the legislature, did not know that there may be persons holding a non-temporary stage carriage permit operating on the route in a particular region.

If the legislature wanted to confer any such right of representation on the holder of the non-temporary stage carriage permit against the grant of contract carriage permit, it would have included them in Section 50 of the Act. Mentioning specifically the holders of contract carriage permit, any local auth-ority or police authority only under Section 50 of the Act, in my opinion, excludes the holders of non-temporary stage carriage permits. This is the only natural and plain construction, which can be placed on the language of Section 50 of the Act. Nothing can be imported or read in Section 50 which is not there in the provision. The scope of Section 50 thus, is limited for making representations by the persons or authorities enumerated therein. One of the cardinal rules of construction is 'Expressio unius exclusio alterius'. Express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. This maxim can legitimately be pressed into service. The above construction further gets support from the provision of Section 57 (6) of the Act which provides for taking such steps for hearing the representations that have been made by the persons or authorities referred to in Section 50 of the Act.

8. Reference to Section 64 (1) (f) of the Act for the purpose of construing Section 50 of the Act, in my opinion, is not of much help. Section 64 (1) (f) specifically deals with the right of appeal and this provision confers the right of appeal on the persons or authorities, who have opposed the grant of permit although those persons, and the authorities may not have any right to oppose but when an opposition is made then this provision confers a right of appeal on them. It may be stated that the conferment of right of appeal on the ground of having opposed the grant of permit, cannot be taken to mean that the right to oppose is conferred. With what I am concerned is as to whether a holder of non-temporary stage carriage permit has a right to make a representation under Section 50 of the Act. None of the parties has cited any case which may have direct bearing on the above point, which needs decision in this case. In my humble opinion for the construction of Section 50 of the Act, my answer to the above question is in the negative and I hold that the holder of non-temporary stage carriage permit has no right to make any representation nor any right to be heard. In this view of the matter the petitioner has no locus standi and no right to oppose the grant of contract carriage permit, so this petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground.

9. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.


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