BIHARILAL CHAURASIA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Articles 326 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner biharilal Chaurasia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order made by the regional Transport Authority, Rewa, on 17th March 1964 granting an application of the respondent No. 2, M/s. The Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. (hereinafter called the Company), for counter-signature of a permit held by the Company in respect of the inter-regional route, Jabalpur-Chhattarpur, on its renewal by the regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur.

(2.) THE material facts are that the petitioner holds a permit for Chhatarpur Damoh route, which is a portion of the Jabalpur-Chhatarpur route. In 1957 a permit for jabalpur-Chhatarpur route was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, jabalpur, to the Company. It was renewed and countersigned by the Regional equivalent Citation: transport Authority of Jabalpur and Rewa in 1960. The validity of the renewed permit and the counter-signature was upto 9th August 1968. On 7th June 1963 the Company made an application for renewal of the permit, which was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, by its order dated 6th December 1963, and the permit was renewed upto 9th February 1966. Thereafter the Company applied on 7th December 1963 to the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, for the grant of counter-signature of the permit renewed by the Regional Transport authority, Jabalpur, by its order dated the 6th December 1963. This application for counter signature was published on 2nd January 1964. The petitioner has averred that the publication of the application by the Secretary, Regional Transport authority, Rewa, was on his own authority and without obtaining any sanction of the Regional Transport Authority for it; and that on 9th January 1964 when the regional Transport Authority Rewa, heard one Jogindarsingh on his objection to the renewal of the grant of counter-signature, the Authority made an order that the application for counter-signature should be published "in a regular manner". According to the petitioner, there was, however, no fresh publication of the application for counter-signature. When the application for counter-signature was published, the applicant filed his objections against the grant of counter-signature furnishing a copy of the same to the Company. Before the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, the petitioner opposed the grant of counter-signature inter alia on the ground that the application for countersignature was barred by lime under Section 58 read with Section 63 (3) of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and Rule 62 of the C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, as applied to Vindhya Pradesh region, inasmuch as it was not filed within sixty days before the date of the expiry of the permit; that the Company's permit expired on 9th August 1963, and an application for renewal as well as an application for counter-signature should have been made before the Regional transport Authorities concerned by 8th June 1963; and that the application for "renewal of counter-signature" was filed on 7th December 1963, that is, nearly six months after the expiry of the limitation period. This objection was overruled by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. That Authority found that the application for "renewal of counter-signature" presented by M/s. Bundelkhand Motor Transport co. was filed after the due date, but took the view that this was merely an irregularity of which serious notice need not be taken. The Authority observed--'according to Rule 63, the R. T. A. , Jabalpur, could have sanctioned renewal of the counter-signature also while granting renewal of the permit which had been counter-signed earlier by this authority. Need for moving this authority for getting the counter-signature renewed certainly arose when the R. T. A, Jabalpur declined to sanction the renewal of counter-signature. The operator has filed the application the very next day from the date when the order of renewal was obtained from the R. T. A. Jabalpur. This would appear to be an expeditious presentation of an application from an operator who had to obtain the counter-signature, I do not feel that the present application need to be equivalent Citation: thrown out. " (sic ).

(3.) WHILE assailing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rowa, Shri chitale, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that in the case of an interregional route the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority concerned was essential for the validity and confirmation of the grant made by the Regional transport Authority having jurisdiction to grant permit for the inter-regional route; that the counter-signature was necessary not only when the grant was made for the first time but also whenever it was renewed; that under Section 63 (3) of the act the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits applied to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits; that, therefore, the provisions contained in Sections 57 and 58 about the making of an application for the grant of a permit, the time within which it must be made and the procedure that must be followed in its disposal applied equally in the matter of the grant of counter-signature; and that as section 58 laid down that an application for renewal of a permit must be made in the case of a stage-carriage permit not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry, it necessarily followed that an application for counter-signature on the renewal of a permit for an inter-regional route had to be made to the Regional transport Authority concerned within sixty days before the date of the expiry of the permit as counter-signature could not be effective beyond the date of the expiry of the permit. Learned counsel also submitted that Rule 62 of the Motor Vehicles Rules also provided that an application for renewal of counter-signature on a permit must be made in writing to the Regional Transport Authority concerned within the "appropriate period" prescribed in Rule 61 and in the manner laid down in Rule 62; that in view of the amendment made in 1956 in Section 58 of the Act prescribing the period of limitation for filing a renewal application, the words "appropriate period" must now be read as referring to the period prescribed in Section 58; that rule 63, on which the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, relied for holding that the filing of an application for counter-signature beyond time was merely an irregularity, had no bearing at all on the question of limitation for an application for counter-signature; that Rule 63 while giving to the Regional Transport authority renewing the permit the power to countersign in certain cases, presupposed the existence of an application for counter-signature filed within time; and that as the Company's application, filed on 7th December 1963, was plainly out of time, the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to countersign the permit. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the Company's application for counter-signature was not published at all in conformity with section 57 read with Section 63 (3) of the Act; and that the publication by the secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, on his own initiative was not a valid publication when the said Authority had not delegated to him the power to order publication of applications under Section 57 (3) of the Act.