TMI Blog1976 (9) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndertaking under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and this scheme covered the route Nagina-Jaspur. The publication of this scheme did not affect the validity of the permit of the appellant and Mohd. Ashfaq and they continued to ply their motor vehicles on the route Nagina- Jaspur on the strength of the permit. During the currency of the permit, several amendments of a far-reaching character were made in the Act by Act 56 of 1969 and sub-sections (1A) to (1D) were introduced in Section 68F after sub-section (1). These sub-sections are material and they may be reproduced as follows: 68F(1A) Where any scheme has been published by a State Transport Undertaking under section 68C, that Undertaking may apply for a temporary permit. in respect of any area or route or portion thereof specified in the said scheme, for the period intervening between the date of publication of the scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, and where such application is made, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Trans- port Authority, as the case may be, shall, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to increase, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew that under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 58 an application for renewal of a permit is required to be made not less than 120 days before the date of expiry of the permit and even if there is delay in making the application, it can be condoned under sub-section (3) of Section 58 but only if it is a delay of not more than 15 days and since in the present case the application for renewal of the permit was made by the appellant on 22nd March, 1971, it was late by 18 days and hence the delay was not capable of being condoned and in this view, the Regional Transport Authority by an order dated 28th March, 1973 rejected the application for renewal of the permit as time-barred. The appellant preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and in the appeal the appellant challenged the correctness of the order of the Regional Trans- port Authority. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, however, agreed with the view taken by the Regional Transport Authority and held that in view of the specific prohibition contained in sub-section (3) read with the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 58 it was not competent to the Regional Transport Authority to condone the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable in the present case and the only delay which could be condoned was a delay of 15 days and not more and in any event, there was no sufficient cause made out by the appellant for not making the application for renewal within time and hence the application for renewal was rightly rejected as time- barred. We shall proceed to consider the merits of these rival contentions. The first question which arises for consideration on these contentions is as to whether the time limit pre- scribed by the proviso to subsection (2) of section 58 applies in case of an application for renewal of a permit under the proviso to sub-section (10) of section 68F. The argument of the appellant was that Chapter IVA which contains, inter alia, section 68F, is a self-contained Chapter and nothing in the other provisions of the Act applies to proceedings under that Chapter and hence neither the procedure under section 57 nor the time limit specified in the proviso 10 sub-section (2) of section 58 has any application to an application for renewal of a permit under the proviso to sub-section (10) of section 68-F. This argument is, in our opinion, manifestly wrong. The scheme of Chapter IVA is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply for a temporary permit in respect of a route specified in the scheme and where such application is made, the Regional Transport Authority shall, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of vehicles operating on such route, issue the temporary permit prayed for by the State Transport Undertaking. What shall be the duration of such temporary permit is laid down in sub-section (1-B). Sub-section (1-C) deals with the situation where no application for a temporary permit is made by the State Transport Undertaking and it says that in such a case, the Regional Transport Authority may grant temporary permit to any person in respect of a route specified in the scheme. Sub-section (1-D) imposes a prohibition that save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1-A) and sub-section (1-C), no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication under section 68-C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person in relation to a route covered by such scheme, but this is subject to a proviso that where the period of operation of a permit in relation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the publication of the scheme under section 68-C would have been barred. This, the Legislature did not want and hence the proviso was introduced permitting renewal of an existing permit though for a limited period, despite the general prohibition enacted in sub-section (1-D). This renewal was not intended to be sore6 special kind of renewal different from any other ordinary renewal of a permit. There is, therefore, no reason in principle why the provisions enacted in section 57 and the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 58 should not apply in case of an application for renewal of a permit under the proviso to sub-section (1-D) of section 68-F. If the procedure set out in section 57 does not apply in such a case, there is no other procedure prescribed by the Act which can possibly be invoked and the result would be that them would be no procedure for dealing with such an application for renewal and in that event, how would the objections be invited against the application for renewal and within what time and who would be entitled to be heard and when ? And equally if the time Limit specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 58 does not apply, there would be no time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in the said proviso for the making of such an application, if the application is made not more than fifteen days after the said last date and is accompanied by the prescribed fee. The proviso to sub-section (2) requires that an application for renewal of a permit should be made not less than 120 days before the date of expiry of the permit. But, notwithstanding this provision, the Regional Transport Authority may, under sub-section (3), entertain an application for renewal of a permit after the last date specified in subsection (2), if the application is made not more than 15 days after the said last date and is accompanied by the pre- scribed fee. Sub-section (3) thus vests a discretion in the Regional Transport Authority to entertain an application for renewal of a permit even if it is beyond time, but in that case the delay should not be of more than fifteen days. The word used in sub-section (3) is may and not shall and the Regional Transport Authority is given a discret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ys late and the discretion is to be exercised in favour of entertaining the application for renewal when it is shown that there was sufficient cause for not making it in time. Now the question which arises is: does section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply so as to empower the Regional Transport Authority, for sufficient cause, to entertain an application for renewal even where it is delayed by more than 15 days? Section 29, sub-section (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes section 5 applicable in the case of an application for renewal unless its applicability can be said to be expressly excluded by any provision of the Act. The only provision of the Act sought to be pressed into service for this purpose was sub-section (3). Does sub-section (3) expressly exclude further extension of time under section 5 ? If it does, then section 5 cannot be availed of by the appellant for condonation of the delay. Sub-section (3) in so many terms says that the Regional Transport Authority may condone the delay in making of an application for renewal and entertain it on merits provided the delay is of not more than 15 days. This clearly means that if the application for renewal is beyond time by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
