Delhi Administration Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors [1978] INSC 127 (9 August 1978)
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1959, Section 48(3)
(xiv.) and 63(2)-Scope of
HEADNOTE:
The Governments of the States of Punjab and
Delhi entered into an agreement about 30 years back providing for the running
of public service vehicles on routes which covered each of the two States so
that every one of such routes had one terminus in one of the States and the
other in the other. In Pursuance of the agreement one of the Governments would
issue permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the same would be
countersigned by the other State before the former plied its buses on the
routes covered by such routes. One such permit related to the Delhi-Karnal
route and was countersigned by the State 'Transport Authority, Delhi. The
routes were extend d by the Punjab State authorities under permits granted by
them for intra-state routes connecting different towns in the State of Punjab
itself. Thus a permit was issued in favour of the Punjab Roadways for the route
from Karnal to Chandigarh so that the bus operating on the Delhi-Karnal route
would carry passengers from Delhi to Chandigarh via Karnal. In 1966, the
appellant objected to the exploitation by the State of Punjab of the
inter-State routes in the manner above stated, that is, by extending them
beyond the termini specified in That behalf under the counter signatures made
by the State of Delhi, and approached the Inter-State Transport Commission
constituted under s. 63-A of M.V. Act With a request for interference. The
Commission answered it in favour of the appellant State, and held that it would
not be in order that if one vehicle operating of two permits for two routes
were to book direct passengers travelling on both the routes. Operations which
would contravene this advice should be stopped and the services be so regulated
to ensure that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are not violated".
The State of Punjab went up in appellate to the Inter State Transport Appellate
Tribunal under rule 24 of the Inter-State Transport Commission Rules 1960. The
appeal was dismissed and the respondent State filed a writ petition in the
Delhi High Court which was allowed by the Division Bench.
Dismissing the appeal by certificate the
Court, HELD:
(1) According to clause (xiv) of sub-section
(3) of s. 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1959, the conditions attached to the
grant of permit, under s. 63(2) ibid, may be; (a) that the tickets issued to
passengers, shall bear specified particulars; (b) that the tickets shall show
the fares actually charged; and (C) that records of the tickets issued shall be
kept in the manner specified. None of these conditions embraces a restriction
on the permit holder that he shall not ply his vehicles beyond the specified
inter- state route even if that is done under another permit which is valid
according to law and, therefore, clause (xiv) of s. 48(3) read with s. 63(2) of
the Act will be of no avail.
[76H, 77A-C] 71 (2) 'The words "Tickets
will be issued for the destinations between Delhi and Karnal. Destination
boards should be exhibited" merely lay down positive instruction which the
permit-holder had to carry out, namely, that he would not refuse the issue of a
ticket between the two termini, i.e, Delhi and Karnal. and that he would also
exhibit a board stating that the vehicle in question would cover the route from
Delhi to Karnal. Beyond that the words do not go and cannot be construed to
mean that the vehicle could not ply beyond Karnal or that a board saying, that
it was going to Canceling via Karnal could not be exhibited, or that tickets
could not be issued for any stations except those lying between Delhi and
Karnal. In fact, the authority counter-signing the permit had no concern at all
with any route beyond Karnal. The plying to the vehicle from Karnal to
Chandigarh would be governed not by the permit covering the Delhi-Karnal route
or by the counter-signature on it by another permit issued by the authority
competent to deal with the route between Karnal and Chandigarh. [77D-H] (3) The
plying of vehicles by the Haryana,. Roadways beyond the inter-state route.
under valid permits issued by the competent authority does not amount to an
"extension" of the route such as is prohibited by the Act. [77H. 78A]
The language of sub-section (8) of s. 57 of the Act applies only to a case
Where the permit holder applies for variation of the conditions of his permit
by inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by increasing the number
of services above the specified maximum In the instant case, this situation
does not arise at all inasmuch as the Haryana. Roadways has not applied for The
vacation of any permit in any way and has, on the other hand, taken and
exploited quite another permit for an entirely different rout from another
competent authority. [78E-F] OBSERVATlON:
[If any long distance passengers arc given
preference over those leaving Delhi for a station Lying between the termini;
specified in any permit bearing the counter- signature of the Delhi state
authorities. a peremptory condition attached to the counter-signature would
have been violated and that State would l be entitled to take such action as
may be open to it under the law].
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1800 of 1968 From the Judgment and order dated 20-10-1967 of the Delhi High
Court in Civil Writ No. 1376 of 1967.
S. N. Kacker, Sol. Genl., S. N. Anand and R.
N. Sachthey for the Appellant.
V. M. Tarkunde and Gautam Goswami for
Respondent No. 1.
Yogeshwar Prasad and (Mrs.) Rani Chhabra for
the Interveners.
Ex-parte against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
72 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KOSHAL, J.-The facts giving rise to this appeal by the Delhi Administration on
certificate granted by the High Court of Delhi against its judgment dated the
20th October 1967 in a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India (Civil Writ Petition No. 1376/ 67) are not in dispute and may be
briefly stated. The Governments of the States of Punjab and Delhi entered into
an agreement about 3() years back providing for the running of public service
vehicles in routes which covered each of the two States so that every one of
such routes had one terminus in one of the States and the other in the other.
In pursuance of the agreement one of the Governments would issue permits under
the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the same
would be counter-signed by the other State before the former plied its buses on
the routes covered by such permits. One such permit related to the Delhi-Karnal
route and was countersigned by the State Transport Authority Delhi in the
following terms:
"Countersigned for the portion of the
route Delhi Karnal from 31-7-1967 to 30-11-1967 subject to the condition that
tickets will be issued for the destinations bet wen Delhi and Karnal.
Destination board should be exhibited. Bus will cover the full route and all
other conditions applicable under Motor Vehicle Laws." Other permits for
the Delhi-Karnal route and other interstate routes were counter-signed in the same
terms.
The routes above-mentioned were extended by
the Punjab State authorities under permits granted by them for intra- State
routes connecting different towns in the State of Punjab itself. Thus a permit
was issued in favour of the Punjab roadways for the route from Karnal to
Chandigarh so that the bus operating on the Delhi-Karnal route would carry
passengers from Delhi to Chandigarh via Karnal.
On the 25th July 1956, officers of the two
States came to an agreement whereby the State of Punjab was given the right to
extend its services on inter-State routes to any town in the State of Punjab.
This agreement was subject to ratification by the Governments of the Two
States, which`was, however, never accorded.
In the year 1966, the State of Delhi objected
to the exploitation by the State of Punjab of the inter-State routes in the
manner above stated, that is, by extending them beyond the termini specified in
that behalf under the counter-signatures made by the State of Delhi and
approached the Inter-State Transport Commission (hereinafter called the
commissions) constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 63A of the Act with
73 a request for interference. After hearing counsel for the two States the
Commission passed an order dated 27th August, 1966, in favour of the State of
Delhi. 'the operative part of that order alongwith the reasons listed by the
Commission in support of it is extracted below:
"Section 48(2) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939, prescribes that every stage carriage permit shall be expressed to B.
be valid only for a specified route or routes of for a specified area. It
appears, therefore, that if a permit is expressed to be valid only for the one
specified inter-State route, the same transport vehicle covered by the same
inter-State permit cannot be allowed to proceed further to another route with
liberty to pick up passengers in route on a second route, which is C: an
intra-State route, as this would be in violation of the provisions of the Act.
There is no objection to the same vehicle running on another route under a
different permit, but it would be objectionable if passengers who embark on the
route covered by the inter-State permit are given direct tickets to any town on
the second route for which the vehicle holds on intra-State permit. The issue
of scull a direct ticket would amount to extending the span to the inter-State
route, which is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. In other words,
there can be no objecting to the linking of the two routes but this linking
should not involve boarding of direct passengers, i.e., those holding one
ticket for travel over both the routes on either of the two routes.
"On a careful consideration of the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Commission advise under Section
63A(2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, that it would not be in order if one
vehicle operating on two permits for two routes were to book direct passengers
travelling on both the routes on direct tickets for places on both the routes.
Operations which would contravene this advice should be stopped and the
services be so regulated to ensure that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act are not violated " The State of Punjab went up in appeal to the Inter-
State Trans-port Appellant Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal) under
rule 24 of the Inter-State Transport Commission Rules, 1960. That appeal was
dismissed on the 4th July 1967 through an order, paragraph 3 to 7 of which may be
re-produced for facility of reference:
"3. The learned counsel for the Delhi
Administration replied that the issue of tickets was a condition of a permit
under Section 48(3) (xiv) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The 6-520SCI/78 74
inter-State permit from Delhi to Karnal was, therefore, subject to the
condition that tickets bearing specified particulars shall be issued to
passengers and shall show the fares actually charged. This must be construed to
mean that the ticket which is issued as a condition attaching to a single
permit would be restricted to the route or routes covered by that permit. As
the inter- State route alone is covered by the permit which is countersigned by
the Delhi Administration, the said permit would require the issue of a ticket
only on the Delhi-Karnal route but not beyond.
"4. We think that the contention of the
Delhi Administration is further supported by Section 42(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act under which no owner of a "transport vehicle" (which
includes a stage carriage) shall use the vehicle in any public place, save in
accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional
or a State Transport Authority authorising the use of the vehicle in that place
in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.
The vehicle starting from Delhi on the Delhi
Karnal route would be governed by the conditions of the Inter- State permit
countersigned by the Delhi Administration.
The use of the vehicle at Delhi or, for the
matter of that, at any place on the inter-State route, must be governed by the
conditions of the inter-State permit alone. We have already construed session
48(3) (xiv) to mean that the tickets which must be issued as a condition of the
permit must relate to the route or routes or area covered by that permit. It
would follow therefore that tickets to be issued from Delhi could not be for
any place which was beyond Karnal and, therefore, not covered by the
inter-State permit.
"5. Learned Counsel for the Government
of Punjab submitted that the Delhi Administration has countersigned only the
inter-State route covered by a permit issued by the Government of Punjab with
the knowledge that the same permit was valid floor a further intra-State route
also. This. however, cannot mean that the Delhi Administration are estopped
from contending that under the conditions of the inter-State permit, a ticket
for a place beyond the Inter State route cannot be issued.
"6. From the point of view of the
convenience of the passengers, we would have liked the vehicle starting from
Delhi to issue a long distance ticket to a place even beyond Karnal so that the
passengers starting from Delhi could A be assured of reaching their destination
beyond Karnal. Unfortunately, the attainment of this objective has been
fettered by the existing provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act referred to
above.
"7. For the above reasons, therefore, we
are of the view that the advice given by the Inter-State Transport Commission
was, on the whole, correct, though we have taken the liberty of adding to the
reasons on which the advice could be supported. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed." This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State of
Haryana (which had been carved out of the erstwhile State of Punjab in the
meantime) in the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
which we have mentioned above and which has been accepted by a Division Bench
of the High Court of Delhi. The High Court took note of the various provisions
of the Act and concluded that there was no warrant for the proposition that
tickets could not be issued at Delhi for stations beyond Karnal by the Haryana
Roadways for a bus operating under a permit in respect of the Delhi-Karnal
route and that the Commission and the Tribunal had both erred in holding to the
contrary.
The High Court observed that under clause
(xiv) of sub- section (3) of Section 48 of the Act, the Delhi State could
impose conditions subject to which its countersignature in relation to a permit
covering an inter-state route was to be valid, but added that such. conditions
could only be those which were covered by that clause and no others. It further
found that no condition preventing the permit-holder from issuing a direct
ticket from Delhi to Chandigarh via Karnal was ever imposed by the State
Transport Authority, Delhi, and also that such a condition could not be imposed
inasmuch as (a) the same would not be relatable to the inter-State route and
(b) it would not be covered by clause (xiv) aforesaid. It turned down a plea
that the issuance of tickets from Delhi to Chandigarh by the Haryana Roadways
affected the identity of the Delhi-karnal route or amounted to its extension.
In the result, therefore, the High Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing
the orders of the Commission and the Tribunal and restrained the Delhi Administration
from interfering with the operation of the Stage carriages of the State of
Haryana on the Delhi-Haryana inter-state routes on the plea that the issue of
direct tickets beyond the terminal stations in Haryana on those routes was
prohibited either by the provisions of the Act or by any condition attached by
the State Transport Authority, Delhi.
2. Before us, the contentions raised on
behalf of the appellant are:
(1) The Regional Transport Authority, Delhi,
had the power under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 63 read with clause (xiv) above
mentioned to impose, while according its counter- signature to a permit
relating to an inter-State route, a condition to the effect that tickets shall
not be issued for any station beyond the two specified termini and such a condition
could be spelt out of the counter-signature above extracted by necessary
implication.
(2) The counter-signatures covered only
inter-State routes having specified termini and the issuance of tickets by the
Haryana Roadways for stations beyond the terminus located in the Haryana State
and specified in a particular permit (which has been countersigned by the Delhi
State authorities) amounted to an extension of the route which the Act did not
permit.
We find no force in either of these
contentions for the reasons which follow and which are substantially the same
as advanced by the High Court in the detailed judgment under appeal.
3. Sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the Act
states:
"(2) A Regional Transport authority when
countersigning the permit may attach to the permit any condition which it might
have imposed if it has granted The 'permit, . and may likewise vary any
condition attached to the permit by the Authority by which the permit was
granted." The conditions which a Regional Transport Authority may attach
to a permit while granting it are contained in clause (xiv) above mentioned
which runs thus:
(xiv) that tickers bearing specified
particulars shall be issued to passengers and shall show the fares actually
charged and that records of tickets, issued shall he kept in a specified
manner;" According to this clause, the conditions attached to the grant of
a permit may be- (a) that the tickets issued to passengers shall bear specified
particulars;
77 (b) that the tickets shall show the fares
actually charged; A and (c) that records of the tickets issue(l shall be kept
in the manner specified.
None of these conditions embraces a
restriction on the permit holder that he shall not ply his vehicle beyond the
specified inter-state route even if that is done under another permit which is
valid according to law, and we, therefore, do not see how clause (vix) as above
extracted read with sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 of the Act helps the case of the
appellant.
4. Nor can we agree with the plea that the
counter- signature above extracted could be construed as laying down a
condition that the permit-holder could not ply his vehicle beyond the specified
terminus in the State of Haryana.
Learned counsel for the appellant has laid
emphasis on the words "Tickets will be issued for the destinations between
Delhi and Karnal. Destination boards should be exhibited," and wants us to
interpret them as implying a prohibition on the use of the concerned vehicles
beyond Karnal. We are of the opinion, however, that no such interpretation can
be placed on them. They merely lay down positive instructions which the
permit-holder had to carry out, namely, that he would not refuse the issue of a
ticket between the two termini, i.e., Delhi and Karnal, and that he would also
exhibit a board stating that the vehicle in question would cover the route from
Delhi to Karnal. Beyond that the words do not go and cannot be construed to
mean that the vehicle could not ply beyond p Karnal or that a board saying that
it was going to Chandigarh via Karnal cloud not be exhibited, or that tickets
could not be issued for any stations except those lying between Delhi and
Karnal. In fact, the authority counter-signing the permit had no concern at all
with any route beyond Karnal. The playing J of the vehicle from Karnal to
Chandigarh would be governed not by the permit covering the Delhi-Karnal route
or by the counter-signature on it but by another permit issued by the authority
competent to deal with the route between Karnal and Chandigarh. The first contention
raised on behalf of the appellant is, therefore, found to be without substance.
5. We also find no force in the plea that the
plying of vehicles by the Haryana Roadways beyond the inter-State route under
valid permits issued by the competent authority would amount to an 78
"extension" of the route such as is prohibited by the Act.
Reliance in support of the plea was placed on
sub-s. (8) of S. 57 of the Act which lays down:
"(8) An application to vary the
conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of Ba
new route or routes or a new area or, in the case of a stage carriage permit,
by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by altering
the route covered by it or in the case of a contract carriage permit or a
public carrier's permit, by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the
Permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit:
Provided that it shall not be necessary so to
treat an application made by the holder of a stage carriage permit who provides
the only service on any route Or in any area to increase the frequency of the
service so provided, without any increase in me number of vehicles." As
pointed out by the High Court, the language of the sub-section applies only to
a case where the permit-holder applies for the variation of the conditions of
his permit by inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by increasing
the number of services above the specified maximum. In the case before us this
situation does not arise at all inasmuch as the Haryana Roadways has not
applied for the variation of any permit in any way and has, on the other hand,
taken and exploited quite another permit for an entirely different route from
another competent authority.
Apart from sub-sec. (8) above mentioned, we
have not been referred to any provision of the Act in support of the plea under
consideration which, therefore, fails.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew our
attention to a possible unfortunate situation which might result from the
conclusions which the High Court has reached and, in our opinion, reached
rightly. His apprehension was that in order to make more money and to avoid
inconvenience to itself the Haryana Roadways, while operating under the permit
pertaining to the Delhi-Karnal route, would perhaps not issue any tickets to
passengers bound for stations lying II in between Delhi and Karnal so long as
it could find customers travelling directly from Delhi to Chandigarh and that
in that event the real purpose of the counter-signature would be wholly
defeated. We 79 would certainly not approve of such a situation but then it is
nobody's a case that the Haryana Roadways has been plying its buses on the
Delhi-Chandigarh route or, for that matter, any other route, in that fashion.
However, we may make it clear that if any long distance passengers are given
preference over those leaving Delhi for a station lying between the termini
specified in any permit bearing the countersignature of the Delhi State
authorities, a peremptory condition attached to the counter-signature would
have been violated, and that State would be entitled to take such action as may
be open to it under the law subject to this observation, the appeal fails and
is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.
Back
