Aman Travels v. Regional Transport Authority — 1981 DIGILAW 450 (RAJ)

M.C. JAIN, J.—These two writ petitions raise a common question as to whether the Member R.T.A. Jodhpur could refer the applications to the State Transport Authority for the grant of permits under section 44(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act). 2. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1001 of 1981, the question relates to the grant of National Permits and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1002 of 1981, the question relates to the grant of West-zone permits. In the writ petition, filed by Aman Travel, the relevant facts are that the Government of India by its notification dated October 4, 1980 in exercise of its power conferred by sub-section (11) of section 63 of the Act increased number of the Motor Vehicles for which National permits may be granted, from 400 to 800 for the State of Rajasthan modifying its earlier notification dated April 3, 1979 For the grant of Additional National permits, the office of the Additional Secretary, R.T.A., Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Bikaner and Kota issued a notification dated November 12, 1980 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated November 20, 1980 whereby the applications were invited for the grant of 400 Additional National permits within 30 days from the date of publication of the said notification. In all 3041 applications were received in the office of the Additional Secretary and the region-wise break-up of the applications is as under :- 1. Jaipur 1824 2. Jodhpur 325 3. Udaipur 327 4. Bikaner 315 5. Kota 200 "The substance of the applications were published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated February 7, 1981 and February 13, 1981 and objections were also invited within a period of 30 days under section 57 (3) of the Act. The said notification also incorporated a notice that the meeting of R.T.A shall be held on 16/17/18fh March, 1981 at 10.30 a.m. at Jaipur. 3. Subsequent to the invitation of applications, the State Government by notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated January 5, 1981 redistributed the number of National permits amongst the five Regional Transport Authorities as under :- S. No. Region Existing quota Enhenced quota Vacancies 1. Jaipur 176 344 168 2. Jodhpur 64 128 64 3. Udaipur 50 104 54 4. Bikaner 51 112 61 5. Kota 59 112 53 400 800 400 4. Jaipur 176 344 168 2. Jodhpur 64 128 64 3. Udaipur 50 104 54 4. Bikaner 51 112 61 5. Kota 59 112 53 400 800 400 4. The Member, R.T.A. felt that there was a wide spread discontentment amongst the applicants about the belated break up of National permits Region-wise, so it thought that the State Transport Authority shall be able to select the best suited candidates undeterred by the Region-wise break-up of National permits and it was of the opinion that the Region-wise break-up is only applicable where the respective R.T.As have to grant the permits. In view of the above opinion, the Member, R.T.A., Jodhpur by his order dated May 10, 1981 referred the matter to the State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions in respect of the grant of 400 additional National permits. 5. In the second writ petition, the relevant facts are that in all 2425 applications were received in the office of the Additional Secretary. The region-wise break-up of the applications is as under :- 1. Jaipur 1374 2. Jodhpur 278 3. Udaipur 388 4. Bikaner 211 5. Kota 174 6. The substance of the applications likewise were published in the Rajas-than Raj Patra and objections were also invited and notice for consideration of the applications was also published. The State Government subsequent to the inviting of the applications, re-distributed 300 West Zone permits amongst the five Regional Transport Authorities vide notification dated January 8,1981, which was subsequently withdrawn and by a fresh notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated February 18, 1981 re-distributed the 300 West-zone permits region-wise as under :- S.No. Region Existing quota Enhanced quota Vacancies 1. Jaipur 130 147 17 2. Jodhpur 15 43 28 3. Udaipur 28 36 08 4. Bikaner 20 37 17 5. Kota 07 37 30 200 300 100 7. The Member, R.T.A., by his order dated May 10, 1981 referred the matter to the State Transport Authority under sec. 44(3)(b) to exercise and discharge the powers and functions in respect of the Additional West-zone permits. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Member, R.T.A. alone has the power to grant the National permits or West-zone permits as the case may be and the Member, R.T.A. had no power to require the State Transport Authority under sec. 44(3)(b) to exercise and discharge the powers and functions in respect of the Additional West-zone permits. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Member, R.T.A. alone has the power to grant the National permits or West-zone permits as the case may be and the Member, R.T.A. had no power to require the State Transport Authority under sec. 44(3)(b) of the Act to exercise the power of the R.T.A, for the grant of permits. The reasons given by the Regional Transport Authority in his order dated May 10, 1981, are baseless and unfounded for the reasons that even the State Transport Authority can not act contrary to the region-wise break-up notified by the State Government. 9. The sole question, which arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is as to whether under section 44(3)(b) of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority could require the State Transport Authority to exercise the power of the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of National permits or West-zons permits. The main controversy centres round the provisions contained in section 44(3) (b) of the Act. Sub-section (3) of section 44, which falls to be considered reads as follows :- "44. Transport authorities, (1) ......... ...... ......... (2) ......... ...... ......... (3) A State Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under Sec. 43, and subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act shall exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely: (a) to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities if any, of the State. (b) to perform the duties of Regional Transport Authority, where there is no such authority and, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions; (c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities; and (4) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed." 10. On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that under Clause (b) of subsection (3), the Regional Transport Authority can only require the State Transport Authority to perform its duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions. On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that under Clause (b) of subsection (3), the Regional Transport Authority can only require the State Transport Authority to perform its duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions. For the grant of National permits or West-zone permits, there is no route, so the State Transport Authority can be requested by the Regional Transport Authority to perform its duties in respect of the grant of National permits or West-zone permits. It was submitted that the Regional Transport Authority can request the State Transport Authority to perform its duties in respect of those routes only, which are common to two or more regions, but when the permits are to be granted in respect of certain territories whether national or zonal, then the Regional Transport Authority has no power to make a request to the State Transport Authority to exercise the powers of the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of such permits. It is not disputed that the request can be made by the Regional Transport Authority in respect of two or more regions, which may situate in two or more States. But, for making reference under Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Act, there has to be a route, which may be common to two or more regions but when there is no route, the State Transport Authority cannot exercise the power on the request by the R.T.A. Reference was made by Shri R.R. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners to the definition of the expressions area and route as defined in Section 2 Clauses (1) and (28A) of the Act. 11. Shri B.L. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the Member, R.T.A. and Shri Rajesh Balia, Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that under Clause (b) of sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 44 of the Act, the State Transport Authority is competent to exercise the power of the Regional Transport Authority on its request to consider the applications for the grant of National permits and West-zone permits. The words any route occurring in Clause (b) are of a wide import and it will include all routes through-out the territory of India or throghout the West-zone. The words any route occurring in Clause (b) are of a wide import and it will include all routes through-out the territory of India or throghout the West-zone. Shri Maheshwari submitted that in Ratanlal vs. Chairman, R.T.A. (1), it has been held by this Court that the State Transport Authority is entitled to discharge the functions of the Regional Transport Authority in relation to a route, which lies in two regions lying in different States as well. The provision contained in Clause(b) of sub sec. (3) of the sec. 44 of the Act has been analysed and it has been held that in the three contingencies, the State Transport Authority is competent to take upon itself the normal function of the Regional Transport Authority. The first contingency is when there is no Regional Transport Authority functioning in any region, the second contingency is where the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions and the third contingency is when a request has been made by a particular Regional Transport Authority. Shri Maheshwari also referred to a decision in the State of Rajasthan vs. Noor Mohammed (2). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court approved the view, which has been taken in Ratanlals case supra, which was taken earlier by this Court in the case of Poonamchand vs. State of Rajasthan (3) that in the above three contingencies, the State Transport Authority can perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that when the expression two or more regions may include within its embrace any number of inter state regions, then a permit can be granted for whole of the territory of India or for whole of a particular zone and whatever routes are there in the whole territory, then in respect of such territory permits can be granted to the State Transport Authority It was pointed out that having regard to the nature of the State Transport Authority and the nature of the powers possessed by it, it would not be proper and justified to construe the words any route in a narrow manner or in a narrow sence. The State Transport Authority is an authority for whole of the State and is empowered to take upon itself the functions of the Regional Transport Authority, whenever, it thinks fit, then the State Transport Authority is competent to exercise the powers for the grant of National permits or Zonal permits on the request of the Regional Transport Authority. An argument was pressed into service with reference to the amended Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rule,1951. Sub rule(b) of Rule 77 was substituted by the Rajasthan Moter Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1974 by notification dated April 15, 1974. The substituted rule is as under;- "77. Regions and Regional Transport Authority (a) .......... ......... (b) The State Transport Authority shall be sole Transport Authority under Chapter IV of the Act for vehicle used or proposed to be used on routes common to two or more Regions lying within the same State or in different States. (C) ........... ......... 12. An alternative argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioners that under sub-rule (b) of rule 77, the Regional Transport Authority is made the sole Regional Authority under Chapter IV of the Act for vehicles used or proposed to be used on routes common to two or more regions lying in the same State or in different States. The Regional Transport Authority has been made the sole Transport Authority, so the State Transport Authority has no power. It was urged that when under sub-rule (b), the Regional Transport Authority has powers under Chapter IV of the Act in respect of two or more regions, which will include the grant of permits for whole of the territory of India, or for whole of the particular zone of India, then under section 44(3)(b) as well, the words any route common to two or more regions are capable of the same construction and so the words any routes common to two or more regions should be so construed and interpreted so as to cover the cases of grant of National permits or Zonal permits. 13. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. 13. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. The words any route have to be interpreted in the light of the nature of the power conferred on the State Transport Authority, and in the light of the nature of the Authority, the State Transport Authority is a State Authority exercising jurisdiction over all the regions in the State and it possesses the power and can function as R.T.A., in the absence of any R.T.A. in any region and it also possesses the power to take upon itself the duties of R.T.A. whenever it thinks fit, then it does not stand to reason that when a request is made by the Regional Transport Authority why such a function cannot be performed by the State Transport Authority. It is true that Section 63(11) was introduced by Amending Act No. 26 of 1976 with effect from September 26, 1975 and the expression appropriate authority has been defined under subsection (11) of Section 63 of the Act, For facility of reference sub-sec. (11) of sec. 63 of the Actis reproduced as under :— "63. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted: — (11) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), but, subject to the rules that may be made by the Central Government under sub sec. (15), the appropriate authority may, for the purpose of encouraging long-distance inter-State road transport, grant, in a State, national permits to the owners of motor vehicles who use, or intend to use, such vehicles for the carriage of goods, for hire or reward, in respect of such number of motor vehicles as the Central Government may specify in this behalf in relation to that State, and the provisions of sections 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 59A, 60, 61 and 64 shall, as for as may be, apply to or in relation to the grant of National permits: Provided that the number of National permits specified for a State shall not be varied or modified except after consultation with the concerned State Government. Explanation—In this section —(a) "National permit" means a permit granted by the appropriate authority to the owner of a motor vehicle authorising him to operate as a public carrier throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous States, not being less than five in number (including the State in which the permit is issued), as may be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice indicated by such owner to whom such permit is granted; (b) "appropriate authority" in relation to a National permit means the authority which is authorised by this Act to grant a public carriers permit." 14 Under the above provision, the appropriate authority is empowered to grant National permits to the owners of the Motor Vehicles, who use or intend to use such vehicles for the carriage of goods for hire or reward and the permits can be granted for such numbers of vehicles as the Central Government may specify in relation to the State and the provisions of Sections 54, 55, 56, 57 58, 59, 59A, 60, 61 and 64 have been made applicable in connection with the grant of National permits to the extent, they may be applicable. In the explanation, the two expression National permit and appropriate authority have been defined National permits may be, for whole of the territory of India or for the contiguous States, no being less than five in number and the appropriate authority in connection with the grant of National permits has been defined to mean the authority which is authorised by the Act to grant a public carriers permit. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that section 44 (3) and section 45 have not been made applicable to the grant of National permits. As these provisions have been excluded from sub-section (11) of section 63 of the Act and as the Regional Transport Authority is the authority authorised by the Act to grant a public carriers permit, so the appropriate authority under sub-sec. (11) of Sec. 63 is only the Regional Transport Authority and it does not include the State Transport Authority. It is true that under sub-section (11) of section 63, there is no mention of the provisions of section 44(3) and section 45 of the Act but non-mention or non-inclusion of these provisions in sub section (11) does not mean that they will have no application. It is true that under sub-section (11) of section 63, there is no mention of the provisions of section 44(3) and section 45 of the Act but non-mention or non-inclusion of these provisions in sub section (11) does not mean that they will have no application. Section 44 (3)(b) and section 45 make a provision in respect of the authorities to whom the applications for the grant of permits are to be made. If the conditions of section 44(3)(b) would be attracted then a State Transport Authority would be competent to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority. Under section 45, applications for the grant of permits have to be made to the Regional Transport Authority. The second proviso to sub-sec. (1) of section 45 lays down that if the vehicle is proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in different States, the applications shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. So as a rule, the Regional Transport Authority is the authority to whom applications for a premature to be made. But, if conditions of Clause(b) of sub-section(3) of section 44 exist, then in that situation, the State Transport Authority is equally competent. If, there is no R.T.A., then vaccurn is not contemplated. In the absence of the Regional Transport Authority, the duties can be performed by the State Transport Authority under Clause (b). If in the absence of Regional Transport Authority, the duties can be performed by the State Transport Authority, then, similarly, in the two other contingencies stated above as well, the State Transport Authority would be competent. Sections mentioned in sub-sec. (11) relate to the contents of the applications and other matters namely; Procedure in considering application for public carriers permit, Grant of public carriers permits, Procedure in applying for and granting permits Duration and renewal of permits. General conditions attaching to all permits, Genera! form of permits, Cancellation and suspension of permits, Transfer of permit on death of holder and Appeals, and these provisions do not specifically deal with the matter as to which authority, the applications are to be made, for which the specific provision is contained in sec. 45 and a provision has been made in Sec. 44(3){b). form of permits, Cancellation and suspension of permits, Transfer of permit on death of holder and Appeals, and these provisions do not specifically deal with the matter as to which authority, the applications are to be made, for which the specific provision is contained in sec. 45 and a provision has been made in Sec. 44(3){b). If any one of the given conditions exists the appropriate authority as defined in sub-sec.(l 1) would also include the State Transport Authority, as the State Transport Authority is also authorised by the Act to grant a public carriers permits though only in the three contingencies considered above. Thus, it can not be said that the State Transport Authority is not competent to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority, even when the Regional Transport Authority requires the State Transport Authority to perform its duties. The only question is as to whether the words any route occurring in Clause (b) can even mean the territory of India or West-zone. I may refer here the argument based on the definition of the expressions area and route. These expressions are defined under section 2 as under :— "2(l) "Area", in relation to any provision of this Act means such area as the State Government may, having regard to the requirements of that provision specify by Notification in the Official Gazette." "2(28-A) "route" means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another." 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that under Clause (b), the word route should be given the meaning as defined under Clause (28A) of Section 2 of the Act and according to that definition, the route will necessarily be having two termini and vehicles can be traversed only between the line of travel between one termini and another. In case of the grant a National permit or a Zonal permit there is no route having any termini. It may be stated that the word route occurring under Clause (b) cannot be given such a restricted or narrow meaning. The provisions of the Act, particularly, Secs. 44(3)(b), 45 and 63(11) of the Act have to be read together and have to be harmoniously construed. It may be stated that the word route occurring under Clause (b) cannot be given such a restricted or narrow meaning. The provisions of the Act, particularly, Secs. 44(3)(b), 45 and 63(11) of the Act have to be read together and have to be harmoniously construed. If these provisions are read together, the intention of the legislature would clearly appear to be that in the absence of the Regional Transport Authority, the function of the R.T.A. can be performed by the S.T.A. and if there is no R.T.A. and restricted meaning is given, then in the regions where there is no R.T.A., the provisions of sub-sec. (11) of sec. 63 would not be operative and the intendment behind the provision contained in Clause(b) of sec.44(3) only appears to be that in the absence of the R.T.A., the State Transport Authority shall be able to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority. The word route under Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 44, to my mind should be construed in its ordinary connotation and it would be mean a course to be traversed, or a line of march, or a track. 16. In C.P. Sikh Regular Motor Service vs. The State of Maharashtra(4) a question arose for consideration that the scheme framed under sec. 68C for the entire State of Maharashtra in respect of all routes or portions thereof falling in the State of Maharashtra is valid or not, without specifying the area by a notification by the State Government in the Official Gazette, as in accordance with the definition of Area, it is essential that such area should be specified in the Official Gazette. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the word area occurred in sec. 68C does not in the context require specification by a notification in the Gazette by the State Government. Sec. 68C did not require that the area in relation to which the scheme has been framed should have been specified by notification in the Official Gazette by the State Government before insertion of sec. 2(1) by the Amendment Act 56 of 1969. Their Lordships also considered the two expressions area and route and it was stated that -no doubt, a route must necessarily run over an area but, for that reason, one cannot equate an area to be route. An area simpli-citer is certainly not a route. 2(1) by the Amendment Act 56 of 1969. Their Lordships also considered the two expressions area and route and it was stated that -no doubt, a route must necessarily run over an area but, for that reason, one cannot equate an area to be route. An area simpli-citer is certainly not a route. Its potentiality to become a route would not make it a route. A route is an area plus something more." Their Lordships further observed that but we think, it comports more with the legislative purpose to hold that the State transport undertaking is invested with the discretion to select the area in relation to which it will frame the scheme then to hold that that discretion has been vested in the State Government." This decision does not directly throw light on the question, which has arisen in the present case. Whatever observations have been made in that case, have been made, while considering the provision of sec. 68C and sec. 2(1) and sec. 2(28A) with reference to the argument advanced in that case. However, it is clear that the expression area* has been given a meaning different from that defined, as in the subject or context, the meaning given in the definition is repugnant. In the present case, as well the meaning to the word route as defined, cannot be given, as the provision under sec. 44(3)(b) would be rendered redundant and the State Transport Authority would have no power in connection with the applications for the grant of National permits or Zonal permits in any situation, which could not be the intention behind sec 44(3)(b). In this view of the matter I do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Regional Transport Authority could not refer the matter to the State Transport Authority as the State Transport Authority is not an authority competent to grant National permits or Zonal permits. 17. An alternative argument as stated above has also been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under rule 77(b) the R.T.A. is the sole Transport Authority under Chapter IV of the Act in respect of routes common to two or more regions lying in the same State or in different States. 17. An alternative argument as stated above has also been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under rule 77(b) the R.T.A. is the sole Transport Authority under Chapter IV of the Act in respect of routes common to two or more regions lying in the same State or in different States. So, in view of this rule, the R.T.A. is not competent to request the State Transport Authority to consider the applications for the grant of National permits or Zonel permits. Shri Vyas submitted that under sub sec. (3) of sec. 44 of the Act, the State Transport Authority is required to give effect to the directions issued under sec. 43 of the Act and when any such direction is given, the State Transport Authority cannot take upon itself the function of the R.T.A. That would be contrary to the direction as has been held in the State of Rajasthan vs. Noor Mohammads case (supra). Similarly, according to Shri Vyas, the State Transport Authority cannot act in contravention of the rule 77(b). As the State Transport Authority is required to act subject to any directions under sec. 43, so the State Transport Authority is required to act subject to sub-rule (b) of rule 77. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, for the obvious reason that the rule cannot be placed on the same pedestal as the provision in the Act. The rule is subordinate legislation. When under the Act, if the power can be exercised by the State Transport Authority, then that power cannot be taken away by any rule. Sub-rule (b) of rule 77 will be subordinate to the provision contained in sec. 44(3)(b) of the Act and rule cannot be allowed to prevail over the provision of the Act if the provision is capable of being construed in the manner, whereby the power vests in the State Transport Authority. Thus, on the basis of rule 77(b) it cannot be successfully contended that the R.T.A. is a sole authority and the State Transport Authority has no power to exercise the functions of the Regional Transport Authority when a request is made by the Regional Transport Authority. 18. No other point has been pressed before me. 19. In the result, these writ petitions have no force and are hereby dismissed.