SINDHI SAHITI MULTI PURPOSE TRANSPORT CO OP SOCIETY LTD Vs. SAMRATHMAL KESRIMAL AGRAWAL BUS OPERATORS RATLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this ease holds permits for Bhopal, Sehore, Bhopal-Ujjain and Bhopal-Indore routes. On 1st February 1963 the Regional Transport Authority, Indore, granted single-trip permits on the inter-regional route Ratlam-Bhopal to the respondents Nos.1 and 2. These permits have not yet been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal. On 18th July 1964 the Regional Transport Authority, Indore, on the application of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, made an order permitting them to ply their services on the portion of the route lying within its region and also fixed timings of their services on the inter-regional route. The Regional Transport Authority overruled the petitioner's objection that on the strength of the inter-regional permit for Ratlam-Bhopal route the respondents could not be allowed to operate their services within the region of the Regional Transport Authority, Indore, namely, from Ratlam to Sonkatchha; and that the timings with regard to the operation of the services on the inter-regional route could not be fixed unless and until a valid permit first came into existence after countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal. The petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing this order of the Regional Transport Authority, Indore, passed on 18th July 1964.

(2.) In our judgment, this application must be granted. Section 63 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, lays down that 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-singed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. There is no "otherwise" provision in the Act or the Rules made thereunder dispensing with the neoessity of counter-signature in the case of an inter-regional route. In the case of an interregional route the counter-signature of a permit is an essential and integral part of the grant giving validity and effectiveness to the permit in the regions concerned. A permit for an inter-regional route does not come into existence unless and until it is countersigned by the authority competent to countersign it; and the grant of the permit by the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction to do it is not sufficient to enable the person to operate on the route. As the permit granted is for an inter-regional route, the person obtaining the permit cannot operate on the strength of that permit only on that portion of the route which lies within the region of the Regional Transport Authority granting it. So to permit would amount to conversion of the inter-regional route permit into one for a route lying within the region of the Regional Transport Authority granting it. Such a conversion is opposed to the very concept of an inter-regional permit and is not warranted by any provision in the Act. The Regional Transport Authority, Indore, was therefore, clearly in error in thinking that on the strength of the permits obtained by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the inter-regional route, Ratlam-Bhopal, they could operate from Ratlam to Sonkatchha, that is on the route lying within its area till the permit was countersigned. As the permits obtained by the'said opponents are for the inter-regional route Ratlam-Bhopal, they can run their services on that route only after obtaining the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal. If they fail to do so, they cannot operate any service on the basis of those permits.

(3.) In regard to the fixation of timings for the inter-regional routes Ratlam Bhopal, the question of fixation of timings on the route can arise only after a valid permit for the route comes into existence. As the permits obtained by the opponents Nos. 1 and 2 have not yet been countersigned, the Regional Transport Authority, Indore, was not justified in fixing the timings even before the coming into being of valid permits on the route on counter-signature. The timings fixed by the Regional Transport Authority were obviously for the purpose of enabling the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to run their services from Ratlam to Sonkatchha. The fixation of timings for Ratlam-Bhopal route in July 1964 can be of little validity or use some months after when the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 obtain the grant of counter-signature from the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal, on their permits. The reason is that the timing has to be fixed with regard to the state at a particular point of time of services running on other routes and likely to be affected by the timings to be fixed in regard to the new routes. The circumstances as regards traffic and operation of service on other routes which prevailed in July 1964 may not be the same when the respondents actually after obtaining counter-signature on their permits become entitled to commence the service.