Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1965 (10) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Regional Transport Authority, Raipur held that the application for renewal of the grant of countersignature was not made within the time prescribed by rule 62 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules but it took the view that the application for renewal had been filed within six weeks of the date of the passing of the order of renewal of the permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur and therefore the application for the renewal of the grant of countersignature could not be rejected on the ground that it was time barred. The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur accordingly granted the renewal of the counter-signature on the permit by its order dated February 24, 1964. Respondent no. 2 thereafter applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ quashing the order dated February 24, 1964 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur. The High Court took the view that an application for renewal of the grant of counter-signature must be made within the period prescribed by s. 58 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the appellant having failed to apply within that period, the application of the appellant for re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ority may specify in the permit. Sub-section (2) enacts that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit, provided that the application for the renewal of a permit shall be made (a) in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry, and (b) in any other case, not less than thirty days before the date of, its expiry. By sub-s. (3) the Authority is, notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to sub-s. (2), authorised to entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in the said proviso, if the application is made not more than fifteen days after the said last date. Section 63 deals with inter-regional and inter-state permits. The material parts of that section are (1) 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 countersigned, by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unles .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Authority has no power to countersign the permit, and upon that ground the High Court has quashed the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated February 24, 1964 granting countersignature of the permit. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the period of limitation prescribed by s. 58 of the Motor Vehicle,-, Act cannot be applied to an application for countersignature of a renewed permit. It was submitted that the question of counter- signature cannot arise unless and until the permit was first renewed and therefore it was erroneous to say that an application for countersignature should be made even before the permit was renewed and within the time prescribed by s. 58. The contrary view was put forward on behalf of respondent no. 2. It was contended that in the case of an inter-regional route, the countersignature 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 a permit for the inter-regional route. It was pointed out that under s. 63 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act the provisions of Ch. IV relating to grant, revocation and suspensi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sions of r. 63, application for the renewal of a countersignature on a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority concerned and within the appropriate periods prescribed by Rule 61 and shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (b), be accompanied by Part A of the permit. The application shall set forth the period for which the renewal of the countersignature is required . By r. 63 cl. (a) it is provided : The authority by which a permit is renewed may, unless any authority by which the permit has been countersigned (with effect not terminating before the date of expiry of the permit) has by general or special order otherwise directed, likewise renew any countersignature of the permit (by endorsement of the permit in the manner set forth in the appropriate form) and shall, in such case, intimate the renewal to such authority . Rule 61 substantially incorporates the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the proviso thereto, and makes certain incidental provisions. Clause (a) of r. 62 provides that the application for renewal of countersignature of a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority concerned and within the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spur was alone competent to renew the countersignature of the permit. We accordingly hold that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated February 24, 1964 granting countersignature of the permit was illegal and ultra vires and was rightly quashed by the High Court by its order dated November 13, 1964. We, therefore, confirm- the order of the High Court, but for different reasons. We, however, desire to make it clear that our order does not affect the validity of the permit granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur in so far as it relates to the route within the limits of Bilaspur region. That is the ratio of the decision of this Court in M/s. Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company, Nowgaon v. Behari Lal Chaurasia and anr.( [1966] 1 S.C.R. 485) in which it was pointed out that inter-regional permit when granted is valid for the region over which the authority granting the permit has jurisdiction even though it is not countersigned by the proper Regional Transport Authority with regard to the portion of the route outside that region. We accordingly dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs. We desire to express our thanks t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates