AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Basi Reddy, J.—The question for determination in this writ petition is as to the scope of sub-section (8) of Sec. 57 and its impact on Sec. 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
The facts, so far as they are material for deciding this question, are as follows : Respondents 3 and 4 held a stage carriage permit in respect of the route Dannavada to Pulivendala. This route lies entirely in Cuddapah district within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah. while so, respondents 3 and 4 filed an application before the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah, to vary the conditions of their permit by including a new route extending from Dannavada to Kolimigundla. It is to be noted that this new route, which covers a distance of sixteen miles, lies entirely in Kurnool district within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool. The Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah, entertained the application and actually took some preliminary steps in the matter by consulting the Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool, as regards the desirability and feasibility of granting the extension of the route applied for.
At that stage, the two petitioners, who are bus operators running their buses on the route Jammalamadugu to Tadpatri, moved this Court by means of this writ petition and sought a writ of prohibition to restrain the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah and the Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool, from dealing with the application filed by respondents 3 and 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the new route included in the application for variation filed by the 3rd and 4th respondents, lay entirely in the District of Kurnool, the Authority competent to entertain that application was the Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool, and not the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah.
In my opinion, this contention is manifestly untenable because it overlooks the effect of the provisions of sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the first proviso to Sec. 45 of that Act Sub-section (8) of Sec. 57 so far as is material for the present purpose, provides:
An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area.............. shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit.
Thus this provision creates a fiction by enacting that an application for the variation of the conditions of a permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. Once that is done, all the incidents governing an application for the grant of a new permit are attracted and one of such incidents is what is provided for by S. 45 of the Act.
That section runs as follows:
Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles:
Provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle of vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles:
Provided further that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying in different States, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business.
The above section was substituted for the old section by Sec. 39of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act No. 100 of 1956) to obviate certain practical difficulties in regard to the grant of permits for inter-regional and inter-State routes by indicating the authorities to whom applications for permits should be made in such cases. On a plain reading of the section, it is apparent that its provisions govern not only an application for a permit which is made for the first time but also an application for the variation of the conditions of an existing permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area which, by reason of the deeming provision contained in sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 57 of the Act, becomes an application for a new permit in every respect and for all purposes. In my judgment such an application has to be treated as one for the grant of a new permit in respect of the entire route, which would comprise the existing route and the proposed new route, and not merely as an application for a new permit in respect of the new route only. Once the deeming provision comes into play, the provisions of Sec. 45 are attracted with the result that where a vehicle is proposed to be used in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application for a permit shall be presented to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route lies.
In the present case, respondents 3 and 4 had filed an application before the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah, to vary the conditions of their permit by tacking on a new route - Dannavada to Kolimigundra, to the old route-Dannavada to Pulivendala; so that, the entire route would be Kolimigundla to Pulivendala via Dannavada. Since the major portion of the proposed route lay in the Cuddapah District, the Regional Transport Authority of that region alone - and not the Kurnool Authority - had jurisdiction to entertain the application; and that is what has been done in this case.
I may add that I am fortified in my view as to the scope and effect of Sub-section (8) of Sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the decision of a Divisional Bench of the High Court of Jasram and Another Vs. State Transport Authority and Others, .
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs.