AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.versusCHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

458                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   13 S.C.R. 458               [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A                  AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.
                                       v.
                CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 10002 of 2018)
B                           SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
         [KURIAN JOSEPH AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
            Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Chapters V & VI; ss. 88 and 98 –
      Overriding effect provided u/s.98 – Operation of – Appellant, private
C     operator of non-air conditioned bus, was issued inter-State permit
      by State of Punjab – Appellant claimed counter-signatures on the
      said permit from the authority of Union Territory (U.T) of Chandigarh
      for operation of non-air conditioned bus in the said U.T. – Allowed
      by Single Judge – Division Bench overturned the said view holding
      that the appellant cannot operate its stage carriages beyond the
D     territory of Punjab in view of the 1998 Scheme of the U.T. of
      Chandigarh framed under Chapter VI which excludes operation of
      private operators altogether – On appeal, held: Division Bench
      missed the crucial relevance and effect of the Reciprocal Agreement
      of 2008 contemplated u/s.88, Chapter V which specifically provides
E     for counter signature for non-A.C. buses – There is no dispute that
      despite the Scheme of 1998, the appellant operated its stage carriage
      up to 2008 – Scheme is unilateral, whereas the Reciprocal
      Agreement is bilateral – Despite the availability of Scheme, the U.T
      of Chandigarh and the State of Punjab consciously entered into a
      Reciprocal Agreement permitting the non-A.C. buses, for which the
F     State of Punjab had issued permits prior to 1966 and it continued
      to be renewed by the State of Punjab to operate in the Union
      Territory of Chandigarh – Unless the Reciprocal Agreement is
      superseded by a fresh agreement or unless there is a new scheme
      framed by the U.T of Chandigarh specifying the provisions to the
G     contrary, the buses operated by the appellant, which had permits
      issued prior to 1.11.1966 and so long as they are renewed by the
      State of Punjab, the U.T of Chandigarh cannot refuse counter
      signature – Based on s.98, it was contended that Scheme framed
      under Chapter VI has overriding effect over the Reciprocal

H
                                      458
   AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD. v. CHANDIGARH                        459
                ADMINISTRATION

Agreement contemplated u/s.88 (Chapter V) – However, overriding        A
effect provided in s.98 operates only in case of an inconsistency on
a legal position – There is no such situation in the present case –
On the contrary, the Reciprocal Agreement is on mutually beneficial
terms – Impugned order passed by the Division Bench set aside –
Order of Single Judge restored.
                                                                       B
      Disposing of the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1 There is no dispute that despite the Scheme of
1998, as amended in 2001, the appellant operated their stage
carriage up to 2008. [Para 5] [461-G-H]
                                                                       C
       1.2 The Scheme is unilateral, whereas the reciprocal
agreements are bilateral. Despite the availability of Scheme, the
Union Territory of Chandigarh and the State of Punjab have
consciously entered into a reciprocal agreement permitting the
non-A.C. buses, for which the State of Punjab had issued permits       D
prior to 1966 and it continued to be renewed by the State of Punjab
to operate in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It has also come
in the affidavit of the State of Punjab that such mileage has been
taken into consideration for the mileage entitlement of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh, in the reciprocal agreement which has
come into effect on 04.06.2008. Therefore, unless the reciprocal       E
agreement is superseded by a fresh agreement or unless there
is a new scheme framed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh
specifying the provisions to the contrary, the buses operated by
the appellant, which had permits issued prior to 01.11.1966 and
so long as they are renewed by the State of Punjab, the Union          F
Territory of Chandigarh cannot refuse counter signature for the
reason that the permits already issued in 1966 had outlived its
life after five years of the reorganization. The overriding effect
provided in Section 98 of the said Act operates only in case of an
inconsistency on a legal position. There is no such situation in
the present case. On the contrary, the reciprocal agreement is         G
on mutually beneficial terms. Therefore, the impugned order
passed by the Division Bench is set aside and that of the Single
Judge of the High Court is restored. [Paras 8, 9] [460-G-H;
461-A-E]
                                                                       H
460            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10002
      of 2018.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2011 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Letter Patent Appeal No. 1098
      of 2010.
B           P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Rohit Kapoor, Ms. Neelam Kalsi,
      Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Priyal Agarwal, Advs. for the Appellant.
           Sudhir Walia, Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Uttara
      Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Jagjit Singh
      Chhabra, Advs.for the Respondents.
C
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            KURIAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
            2. Leave granted.
             3. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.04.2011
D
      passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
      at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No.1098 of 2010, whereby the
      Division Bench overturned the view taken by the learned Single Judge
      of the High Court and held that the appellant cannot operate its stage
      carriages beyond the territory of Punjab in view of the 1998 Scheme, as
E     amended in 2001. The relevant consideration in the impugned order
      reads:-
              “The 1998 Scheme and the modified Scheme of 2001 does not
            permit non-air conditioned buses of the private operators (persons/
            agencies) to operate in the U.T., Chandigarh. Section 66 of the
F           1988 Act prohibits an owner of the motor vehicle to permit use of
            his vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or
            not carrying any passengers or goods without permit granted or
            counter-signed by the competent authority. This Section
            necessitates a permit for a vehicle to be used as a transport vehicle.
            Section 88 of the 1988 Act provides counter-signatures of a permit
G           granted in any one State to be valid in any other State. Since the
            1998 Scheme of the U.T. Chandigarh excludes the operation of
            private operators altogether, which Scheme has been framed under
            Section 99 read with Section 100 of the 1988 Act falling in Chapter
            VI of the 1988 Act, the same shall have an over riding effect. If
H
   AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD. v. CHANDIGARH                                461
           ADMINISTRATION [KURIAN, J.]

      that be so, the respondent-Company, a private operator, has no           A
      right to claim counter-signatures from the Authority of U.T.
      Chandigarh on the permit issued to it by the Authority of the State
      of Punjab under the Reciprocal Agreement dated 4.6.2008 also.
            In the light of the above conclusions reached by us, the
      respondent-Company cannot claim counter-signatures on an inter-          B
      State permit from the Authority of U.T., Chandigarh to operate a
      non-air conditioned bus in the territory of U.T. Chandigarh.”
       4. Unfortunately, the Division Bench has missed the crucial
relevance and effect of the reciprocal Agreement of 2008, which came
into effect on 04.06.2008, which specifically provides for counter signature   C
of non-A.C. buses. The relevant paragraph is set out below:-
          “The routes mentioned in Annexures A,B,C & D shall always
      mean the shortest direct route connecting the two terminals lying
      in the two states through the places mentioned therein. Any
      discrepancy discovered later in the name or length of route shown        D
      in the said annexure shall promptly be corrected through
      correspondence between the reciprocating States/UT and shall
      not be treated as any modification of the agreement. The Air
      conditioned and Non-air conditioned buses owned and operated
      by STU’s of both the State/UT shall only be allowed subject to
      the counter signatures. Integral Air Conditioned Buses of the            E
      private operator shall be allowed on the routes covered in annexure
      D to this agreement subject to countersignatures, provided that
      permits for such Buses shall not be extended beyond Chandigarh
      except in Punjab area. Non air conditioned buses of the private
      operators having permits issued before 01.11.1966 may be allowed         F
      after verification of the original permits and countersignatures
      provided that such permits shall be countersigned only if they fall
      in the scope and terms of Section 74 of the Punjab Reorganization
      Act, 1966 and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”
        5. There is no dispute that despite the Scheme of 1998, as amended     G
in 2001, the appellant operated their stage carriage up to 2008. According
to the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 3, reciprocal
Agreement of 2008 specifically contains the provision to deny the counter
signature of the bus operated by the appellant in the Union Territory of
Chandigarh.
                                                                               H
462            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A            6. Despite the persuasive arguments advanced by the learned
      counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3, we find it difficult to appreciate
      the contention. Learned counsel has specifically referred to Chapter VI
      of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the said Act’) and has invited
      our attention to Section 98 of the said Act to canvass the point that the
      Scheme under Chapter VI of the said Act has overriding effect over the
B
      reciprocal Agreements contemplated under Section 88, coming under
      Chapter V of the said Act. Section 98 of the said Act reads as follows:-
              “98. Chapter to override Chapter V and other laws.- The
            provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders made thereunder
            shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
C           contained in Chapter V or in any other law for the time being in
            force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such
            law.”
            7. Section 88 (5) and (6) under Chapter V read as under:-
D           “88 (5) Every proposal to enter into an agreement between the
            States to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted
            or countersigned in respect of each route or area, shall be published
            by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official
            Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in regional
            language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered
E           by the agreement together with a notice of the date before which
            representations in connection therewith may be submitted, and
            the date not being less than thirty days from the date of publication
            in the Official Gazette, on which, and the authority by which, and
            the time and place at which, the proposal and any representation
F           received in connection therewith will be considered.
            (6) Every agreement arrived at between the States shall, insofar
            as it relates to the grant of countersignature of permits, be published
            by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official
            Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in the regional
G           language circulating in the area or route covered by the agreement
            and the State Transport Authority of the State and the Regional
            Transport Authority concerned shall give effect to it.”
            8. There cannot be any dispute that the Scheme is unilateral,
      whereas the reciprocal agreements are bilateral. Despite the availability
      of Scheme, the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the State of Punjab
H
   AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD. v. CHANDIGARH                                  463
           ADMINISTRATION [KURIAN, J.]

have consciously entered into a reciprocal agreement permitting the non-         A
A.C. buses, for which the State of Punjab had issued permits prior to
1966 and it continued to be renewed by the State of Punjab to operate in
the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It has also come in the affidavit of
the State of Punjab that such mileage has been taken into consideration
for the mileage entitlement of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, in the
                                                                                 B
reciprocal agreement which has come into effect on 04.06.2008.
Therefore, unless the reciprocal agreement is superseded by a fresh
agreement or unless there is a new scheme framed by the Union Territory
of Chandigarh specifying the provisions to the contrary, the buses operated
by the appellant, which had permits issued prior to 1.11.1966 and so long
as they are renewed by the State of Punjab, the Union Territory of               C
Chandigarh cannot refuse counter signature for the reason that the
permits already issued in 1966 had outlived its life after five years of the
reorganization. The overriding effect provided in Section 98 of the said
Act operates only in case of an inconsistency on a legal position. There
is no such situation in the present case. On the contrary, the reciprocal
                                                                                 D
agreement is on mutually beneficial terms.
       9. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the
Division Bench and restore that of the learned Single Judge of the High
Court.
       10. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. The consequences             E
will follow and needful shall be done within four weeks from today.
      11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
      12. There shall be no orders as to costs.

                                                                                 F
Divya Pandey                                               Appeal disposed of.




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H