STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus SHRI NOOR MOHAMMAD

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

SHRI NOOR MOHAMMAD

August 9, 1972

[K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.]

Motor Vehicl<" Act \4 of 1939) ss. 43 and 44(3) (b)-When State Transport Authority ca~z take over functions of Regional ]'ransport Authority.

The respondent submitted an application to the Regional Transport ~uthority for the grant of stage carriage .p~rmit on nn intcr~rcgio~i::il and. rnter-state route. The Regional Transport Authority declined to consider the application, because, bv resolution of the State Transport Authority, the State Transport Authority took over the functions of the Regional Trans-port Authority with regard to inter-state routes. Jn writ petition filed by the respondent the High Court hel<l, (1) that under s. 44(3) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the State Transport Authoritv was entitled to perform the duties of Regional Trz.1sport Authority in only two cases, namely, (a) where there is no Regional Transport Authority in J) region and the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform :he duties of the Regional Transport Authoritv and (b) when the Regional Transport Authority is functioning only in respect of inter-regional routes and on the request of the Regional rfransport Authority; and (2) that the resolution of the State Transport Avthority taking over the furictio~""ts of the Regional Transport. Authority \VJ.s confrary to the direction giv\::11 by the State under s. 43 the High Court therefore, directed the Rc\'.!ion~l Transport Authority to dispose o-f the application of the respondent.-

Dismissing the appeal to th!s Court,

HELD: (I) Updcr s. 44(3)(b) the State Transport Authority is en· titled to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority in three contingencies, namely (a) where there is no Regional Transport Authority functioning, (b) when the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform the <lutics of the Regional Transport Authority in respect of any route common to t'\'O or more regions, and (c) \Vhere the State rfransport Authority is requested by the Regional "fran:~1~ort Allthoritv to perform those duties in respect of an inter-regional route. f845H-846A]

There is no 1i111itation in the case of the first continµcncy. When Regional Transport Authority is not 'functioning, the State Transport Authority shall perform the duties of Regional Tran,port Authority. The provisions of lhe Act with regard to lssue of permits are i;i the publi::: interest, and it will ]cad to great public inconvenience if in th';! ah'.;cnce 0f the Regional Transport Authority the public is left entirely to the mercy of the State Transport Authority \vhether it will exercise its discretion to pcr'form the duties of the Regional rrrnnsport .l\uthority or not. The other two contingencies ho\vever are limited in their ·scope. Since the State Transport Authority is for the whole State and has wider jmisdiction than the sep·a,rate regional authorities it n1ay in fit case take over the functions of the Regional Transport Authority \Vith regard to any route common to hvo or more region"; and similarly, \Vhen request is made by the ~cgional Transoort Authority the State Transport Authority would be entitled t~ perform the duties of the Regional Transport. Auth~rity in resP<;ct. of an inter~regional route. Since two type.;; of cont1ngenc1cs---one unhm1ted tl\

scope and .the other limited-are combined in one place the word "and' has been used after the first oontingency. The High Court's construction Of the section that 'then~ are only two contingencies as mentioned by it is erroneous. r846C-}{; 847A-C]

. Povnam Chond v. State of Rajasthan, I.LR. 11 Raj. 1031, approved,

(2) But this power under cl. (b) c,ould only be discharged by the State Transp>Jft Authority, .('i) subject to any directions given to it under s. 43 of the Act by the State Government; and (ii) save as otherwise expressly prolided by or under the Act .. f,8470-E]

(a) It cannot be contended that since the Regionat Transport Au tho . . 'rilY. is separate authority on which duties referred to in cl, (b) have been imposed by other piovisions of the Act there is express provision by l)f ·under the Act and that therefore the State Transport Authority would be· disentitled ·to take over these functions. If the expression is so construed the very object of the clause providing 'for the exerciBe by the State Trans· port Authority of the powers of the Regional Transport Authority would lie frustrated. Therefore, the expression "save as otherwise, expressly pro-vided by or under the Act." would, in the context, mean "save aa expreuly barred by or under the Act." Since there is no express provision whicb bars the performance by the State Transport Authority of the duties re-ferred to in cl. (b), the State Transport Authority would not be barred from performing those duties. [847F-ll; 848A'-C]

(b) However, s. 44(3) provides that the State Transport Authority is required to give elfeot .to any direction issued by the State Government. The section gives the State Government power to control road transport and to that end is e3titled, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, to issue directions to the State Transport Authority in four apeci· fied cases. One of them is contained in cl. (iv) of sub-s. (I), and, in the preoent case, the State Government has, by notific\ation, issued directions under that •uh-section to the State Transport Authority to the effect that the Regional Transport Auhority was to invite applications for grant of pcrrni.t-' on inter-state routes or to select applicants for the grant c! permits. Thi• direction is binding on the State Transport Authority and since it has to give efiect to the direction, it cannot 'function contrary to it. Therefore, the resolution of the State Transport Authority taking over the functionll of the Regional Transport Authority with regard to inter-state routes was contrary to the direction and hence invalid. [848C.H; 849A-C]

CIVIL APPLLATE JURISDICTION: c. A, No, 1882 (N) of 1970.

Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order date April 14, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.W.P. .No. 453 of 1969. Narayan Sinha, Solicitor-General for India and and K. Baldev Mehta for the appellants.

B, p, Maheshwari, for the respondent.

The Judgment of the Court w<is delivered by

Palekat-, J. Orders have been already passed dismissing the appeal and the reasons will be given now.

This appeal arises out of an ord·~r passed by the High Court of Rviasthan in Writ Petition No. 453 of 1969. The respondent Noor Mohammad, resident of Jaipur, submitted an application on 11-3-1968 to the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, f1•r the .2rant of non-temporary stage. ~Drriage permit on Jaipur-Rohtak route via Shahpura-Karputli, Behror-Jahar-Rewari. ll Objections were invited but no obr~ctions were filed. Besides the respondent, however, the State Road Transport Corporation and two other pesrons had applied for the gran·t of permit· on this route. These two other persons were also absent. Only the respondent and the Corporation were present The Regional Transport Authority did not take the application of ithe res-c J)l>ndent into consideration by reason of resolution passed by the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, which was in fo~ce .. That Resolution dated January .27,1969 and numbered Tr.S.T .. A/69/31743 was duly notified and published on Febr[1ary 6, 1969 as follows :"In exercise of. the powersunder section 44 and section 3(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan resolves that with effeot from the date of the publication of this resolution in the official Gazette, ( 1) The State Transport Authority shall hereinafter-grant all types of permits, renewals, transfers etc. on inter-regional and inrer-statal routes. In respect of these routes State Transport Authority shall perform all the duties hitherto being performed by the Regional Transport Authority; (2) All types of permits on inter-statal routes shall be counter-siimed by the State Transport Authority."

Relying principally on the above resolution the Regionaf ·Transport Authori~ Jait>ur, declined to considqr the respon;-dent's application, which it is admitted, was for an inter reltionllt and inter-state route. Aggri~\-ed by the decision, the respondent filed the above Writ Petition ·challenging the validity of the above resolution of the State Transport Authority. The challenge was two-fold. One-G was that under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 193Q dealing with the control of transport vehicles it was the Regional Trans.port Authority which could entertain such an application and not the State Transport Allthority. It was true that under section 44(3) the State Transport Authority was entitled to perfonn. the .duties of the Regional Transport under certain con-H ditioPs but this was not case answering those conditions. In the second place, it was contended that there was an agreement between the States of Rajasthan and Haryana about the grant of Inter-State Permits and to order to give effect to that a~ree-

A" ment, '.he State Government had issued •to the State Transport Authonty on Dece_mber 14, 1966 direction under section 43 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the effect that the Regional Tra:is-port Authority was to invite applications for stage. carriage or public carrier Permits and that it had to select 111'Plications for the grant of pennits keeping in view the cQnditions laid down by the Inter. State Transport Commission in this behalf. The casei of these selected candidates were then· to be referred to the Transport authorities of the other Sates concerned for granting the counter-signature und~r the agreement. It was contended that the .State Transport Authority was bound to obey this direction issued by the State Government under section 43 (1) with regard to the grant of Inter State p~rmits and, therefore, the resolution of the State' Transport Authority dated January 27, 1960 was illegal being contrary to the direction given by the State

The cont.ention of 'the respondent was upheld by the Higla Court on both these grounds and direction was issued to tbe Regional Transport Authority •to dispose of the application of O the mspondent for the _grant of permit on Jaipur-Rohtak route in accordance with the law. It is from L"s Order that the pre-sent appeal has been filed.

Chapter IV of ·the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contains detail-ed provisions with re_gard to the control of the control of l rans-port vehicles. Two· transport authorities are constituted under I!! section 44. One is the State Transport Authority which is con-stituted for the whole State and it is to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified jn sub-section (3). The other authority is the Regional Transport Authority. The area cif th·~ State is divided into regions and region is allotted to the con-trol of the Regional Authority. These Regional Transport Authorities had to exercise the powers and functions conferred on them by several other sections in Chapter IV. Sub-sectioti ( 3) & ( 4) of Sec<tion 44 are as follows :

( 3) State Transport Authority (shall give effect to any directions issued under Section 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 nolicies 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

aQd, if it thinks fit or if so required by Regional Transport Authority, to. perform those dU'ties in respect of any route common to two or more regions;

( c) to settle all disputes and decides all matters 011 which differences of opinion arise betw::en Regional Transport Authorities; and

(d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed.

( 4) For the purpose of exercising and discharging the powers and functions specified in sub-section t 3), State Transport Authority may, sub.iect to such con-ditions as may be prescribed, issue directions to any Regional Transport· Authority and the Regional Transport Authority shall (in the discharge of its functions under this Act, give effect to and) be guided by such directions."

It is clear from the above provisions that the State Transpolt Authority is superior Authority with jurisdiction over the whol•· ef the State while the Regional Transport Authority is subordi-nate to it with its jurisdiction generally confined to. the region foe which it is appointed. It is also clear from sub-section (3) clause (b) that the State Transport Authority can perform thc-duties and functions of the Regional Transport Authority undoc certain circumstances. The High Court has held on the con-struction of clause (b) aforesaid that the State Transport Authority is entitled to perform the duties of Regional Tra111-port Authority in only two cases namely (I) Where there is n• r Regional Transport Authority in region and the State Trans-port Authority thinks it fit to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority, and (2) where the Regional Transport Authority is functioning the State Transport Authority can dis-charge the functions of the Regional Transport Authority only in respect of intler-reg'.ional .routes and on t!le request of the Regional Transport Authority. In thus construing section 44(3) (b) the l&arned Judges have departed from the view taken by that High Court earlier in Poonam Chand v. s·ate of Rajasthmc 'md Another('). It was held in that ca•e that the provision ia section 44(3) (b) r.ontemplated three contingencies under whiclt the State Transport Authority can act to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority, viz. (I) where there is n• such a~thoritv; (2) Where the' State Transport Authority itself R thinks fit to perform those duties in respect of anv route comma• to two or more regions; and (3) where the State Transp01it,

State Transp01it,

Authori'ty is so required by the Regional Transport Authority lo perform th~se duties in respect of any such common route. We do not tlunk that there was any sufficient reason for the learned Judges in the present case to depart from the view which had beel!- taken by an earlier division bench of that court. More-over, neither grammar nor convenience compels ithe construction ~dopted b~ the learn~ Judges. The State Tr'lnsport Authority lJ 1s supenor Authority, and if for any reason no Regional Transport Authority is functioning, one does not see why the .duties and functions of the Regional Transport Authority should not be left to be performed by the State Transport Authority. The provisions in the Act with regard to the issue of permits and the .like are made in the public interest and it will lead to great inconvenience if in the absence .of Regional Transport Authority the public should be entirely left to the mercy of the State Transport Aut'lority whether it will exercise its discretion to perform the duties and functions of the Regional Transport Authority or not. In our opinion, the first contingency is the one when Regional Transport Authority is not functioning. In that contingency, all the duties and functions of the Regional T~sport Authority are expected to be carried out by the State Transport Authority. Then we have two more contingencies in which the State-Transport Authority may take over the duties and functions ·of the Regional Transport Authority. Both these .contingencies arise in situ?'ion where the duties of the Regional Transport Authority have to be performed in respect of any route common to two or more regions. These two contingencies are (2) if it thinks fit, or ( 3) if so required by tlie Regional Trans-port Authority, to perform those .duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions. In other words, we have to read the words "to perform those duties etc." once after the word "fit" and second time after the words "Regional Transport Authority." That will explain the importance of the conjunetion "and" which is found in sub-clause (b) after rthe words "such authority". The first contingency brooks of no limitation while contingencies (2) and (3) are limited in scope. Since these two types of contingencies-one unlimited and the other limited were combined into one place, the word 'and' has b~en used after the first contingency. The second contingency takes into account the authority of the State Transport Authority. to t~ke over the specific duties of Regional Transport Authonty with reg,ard to common route if it thinks fit. Since the S~te Transport Authority is f<,ir the w.hole State ~n.d h~ ll: wider jurisdiction than the separate regional authonl!es~ 1t 1s .only to be expected that the State Transport Authonty may, m fit case, take over the functions of the Regional Transport Authority wit!, regard to any route common to two or • more re11;ions. The third contigency is also matter of convewence.

Regional Transport Authority, though clothed with the p0wers to issue pennits with regard to route common to two or more regions, may for several reasons think it appropriate that his function may be more conveniently perfonned by the State Transport Authority being superior Authority with jurisdiction over the several regions and in such case when request is made by the Regional Transport Authority, the State Transport Authority would be entitled to perform the duties of the Region-al Transport Authority. In our opinion, the view which found favour with '!he learned Judges with regard to the construction of clause (b) is erroneous, and the State Transport Authority is entitled to perform the dU'ties of the Regional Transport Autho-rity (i) where there is no such authority; (ii) when the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority in reipect of any route common to two or more reaions or (iii) where the State Transp:irt Authority is required by the Regional Transport Authority to perform those

duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions.

This power under clause (b), however, is subject to certain !imitations. Sub-section (3) begins with the words "A State Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under section 43, and subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act shall exercise and di11-charJ?e throuJ?hout the State the followinJ? powers and functions, including those in snb-clause (b). It is clear, therefore, that the functions under sub-clause (b) could be discharged by the State Transport Authority subject to directions given to it under sec-tion 43 of the Act and save as otherwise ,provided by or under the Act. In the present case it is ur11:ed that directions have been issued by the State Government under' section 43. We shall deal with this point in another place. The other limitation is that the State Transport Authority could perform the duties of the Reaional Transport Authority under sub-clause ( (b) save as oherwise provided bv or under this Act. It was con-· tended tha: the Regional Transport Authority is separate ' authority on which the duties referred to in clause (b) have be.en imposed by otper provisions in Chapter IV, and since the State Transport Auihority is required to act 'save as otherwise pro-G vided by or under the Act" it would be disentitled to take over the functions under sub-clause (b). Such an interpretation would obviously lead to grave incongruity. Sub-clause (b), as we have already seen, provides for the exercise of the nowers of the Regional Transport Authority by the State Transport Authority in certain contin~encies. If the expression "save as ··otherwise provided bv or under the Act" is comtrued in manner to negative the functions oermltted to be Performed under sub-clause (b), the verv obiect with which sub-clause (b) ha• been accordance with the directions issued by the State Gowrnment

enacted will be frustrated. We have therefore to construe ti. expression. "save as otherwise provided by or u~der the Act" i• hannomous manner so that sub-clause (b) is not reduced te a. nullity. In our opinion the expression "save as otherwise pro-vided by or under the Act" would in the context mean, "save Bi ex~ressly barred by or under the Act". If there is provisioa which expressly debarrs the exercise of the power under sub-c!~use (b) in any cas·~ ~en only the State Transport Authority ~ill no! be ~ble to exercise the power and discharge the func-tions given m sub-clause ( b). Otherwise there would be no such bar. It is not shown to us that there is any express provision which bars the performance by the State Transport Authority of the duties referred to in sub-clause (b) and, ·there-fore, w~ arc of the view that the State Transport Authority in this particular case would not be barred from performing the duties under sub-clause (b). ·That brings us to the second ground on which the respondent's request was granted. Section 44 ( 3) provides that ·State Transport Authority is required to give effect to any direction issued under section 43 and would be entitled to exercise and discharge the powers and functions in sub-clauses (a)(b)(c) and ( d) subject to any such directions. Section 43 gives the State Government the power to control road transport and to that end is entitled from time to tim.e by notification in the offi-cial Gazette to issue directions tb the State Transport Authority in 4 specified cases. One of them is contained in clause (iv) of sub,section (I). The State Government is entitled to give direction to the State Transport Authority regarding any matter which may appear to the State Government necessary or expe-dient for giving effect to any agreement entered into with the Central Government or any other State Government or the Government or any other country relating to the regulation of motor transport generally, and in particular to its co-ordination with other means of transport and t!Je conveying of long dis-tance goods traffic. It is not disputed before us that the Sta'te Government of Rajasthan has by notification dated Decem-ber 14. 1966 issued directions under section 43(1) (iv) to the State Transport Authority to the effect that the Regional Transport Authority was to invite applications for grant of pem1its on inter-state routes or to select aoolications for 'the !!Tant· of permit. Now this direction is binding on the State Transport Authority and since it has to give effect to this direction, it cannot function contrarv to this direc<tion. It is obvious that the resolution o"s<;ed bv the State Transport Authority 011 J"nuarv 27. 191'9 bv which it tnok over the functions of th• Regional Tran<port Authoritv wi'h regard to inter-state routes contrary to this direction and. therefore. to that extent was invalid. Tt i< eloo ,..of in di<nnte th•t the rout" wi•h which we are concerned, is also an inter.state route and, therefore, m

RA.1,At'l1IAN v. NOOR MOHAMMAD (Palekar, /.)

it was the R.al Transport Authority alone which could have exercised the Jtmctions with regard to the grant of penni~ on inter-state routes and not the State Transpert Authority. This position is not contes11ed before us by the learned Solicitor Gene-ral appearing on behalf of the appellants. His main complaint in the appeal before us was that the High Court had inte~pri:ted section 44(3)(b) ln manner which would have ;;reated giave public inconvenience. That was the chief reason why the appel-lants felt compelled to come to this Court.

The final order passed by the High Court requiring the Regional Authority to proceed in accordance with law is col'rect. In the circumstances Of the case the appeal had to be dismissed with no order as to costs. That order has been already passed on 20-7-1972.

Appeal dismissed.