STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MADRAS Vs. S CHINNARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order of V. Ramaswami, J., dated 28-2-1979 allowing W. P. No. 3909 of 1978

(2.) Most of the facts are not in controversy. The respondent herein was the grantee of a national permit in the proceedings of the State Transport Authority. Madras, the appellant herein, dated 9-5-1978. The proceedings communicated to the respondent herein stated that the grantee shall produce the registration certificate of the vehicle with valid fitness certificate and valid insurance certificate with current tax paid together with a remittance of Rs. 500/being the authorisation fee by way of crossed bank draft in favour of the appellant herein within two months from the date of the receipt of the order, which time could be extended specially for valid and adequate reasons on specific requests, failing which the sanction accorded was liable to be revoked. The respondent herein on 13-5-1978 received the said proceedings. The respondent remitted a sum of Rs. 500/-being the authorisation fee referred to above, before 13-7-1978, the two months period referred to in the proceedings. However, he was not able to produce the vehicle within the two months' time. On 7-7-1978, he applied to the appellant herein for extension of time and also stated that there was scarcity of Leyland lorries and that that was the reason why be was not able to produce the lorry. He also produced a letter from M/s. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. Stating that the respondent had placed an order for purchase of a lorry, that they could not comply with his request due to scarcity of vehicles and that they would be in a position to supply the same in the beginning of August 1978. The appellant in his proceedings dated 20-7-1978; acting under R. 163 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1940 granted time up to 12-9-1978 with a rider that no further extension would be granted. The significance of the terminal date 12-9-1978 is that since the respondent on 13-5-1978 received the original proceedings dated 9-5-1978. The four months' time, which he would have had, would expire by 12-9-1978. The respondent herein on 11-9-1978 filed another petition for extension of time for producing the vehicle, as he had to build up the body of the chassis purchased by him on. 11-9-1978. On 22-9-1978, the appellant rejected the said petition on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to extend the time under R. 163 (b) beyond the period of four months and that the said period of four months from 1351978 expired on 13-9-1978. He accordingly revoked the sanction already granted. It is to quash the said order that the write petition in question was filed by the respondent herein .

(3.) The learned Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that R. 163 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules authorised the permit granting authority to give time up to four months, that it did not contemplate the authority granting time for a period of less than four months, that only on 20-7-1978 the appellant herein referred to R. 163 W of the Rules in his proceedings and in the original order dated 9-5-1978 there was no reference to R. 163 (b) at all' and that consequently it must be held that the time of two months granted by the proceedings dated 9-5-1978 was only ex gratia and the statutory time-limit prescribed under R. 163 (b) commenced only from 20-7-1978, when the appellant expressly referred to R. 163 (b). It is the correctness of this conclusion that is challenged in the present writ appeal by the State Transport Authority.