U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY:AWADESH NARAIN SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.A.No. 4637 of 1998 (@ SLP(C) No. 13937/92)

(2.) The short question requiring our consideration is : whether the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter the 'Corporation') is required to renew the permits obtained by it to ply its vehicles on a notified route during the subsistence of a scheme The High Court has answered the question in the affirmative.

(3.) In short, the facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Gorakhpur requested the Regional Transport Authorities for issuance of permits for routes covered by a scheme reserved for exclusive operation by the Corporation. In response to the Regional Manager's letter, he was informed that according to the provisions of Section 58 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter the 'Act') permits could be issued for a maximum period of three years and were thereafter required to be renewed. The appellants were informed that on payment of permit fee as well as the prescribed fee under Rule 55 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') the permit issued to the Corporation should be got renewed. The appellants questioned the directions issued by the authorities by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court. The High Court vide its judgment dated 25-1-1991 allowed the Writ Petition partially. It was held that the Corporation was required to apply for renewal of the permit under Section 68-F (1) (E) of the Act for the period prescribed under Section 58 (2) (a) of the Act read with the relevant rules and on making such an application, permit issued to the Corporation would be renewed. The High Court did notice that Rule 10 (4) of the Rules lays down that a permit issued to the Corporation is to remain valid till the scheme remains in force, but came to the conclusion that such a Rule could not override or be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 58 (2) (a) of the Act and, therefore, held that notwithstanding Rule 10 (4) of the Rules, renewal of the permit was essential to make it valid for the renewed period to ply the vehicles by the Corporation. This appeal by special leave calls in question that judgment and order of the High Court.