Holding

A pre‑existing contract‑carriage permit is not required; an applicant may directly apply to the State Transport Authority for an all‑India tourist permit under section 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the 1967 rules do not govern such applications.

Summary

The State Transport Authority of Orissa advertised for applications for all‑India tourist permits in 1974. The appellants applied directly for such permits, were granted them, and their subsequent appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were dismissed. The High Court, however, quashed the permits on the ground that only holders of an existing contract‑carriage permit could apply and that the applications were incomplete, relying on the 1967 Orissa Tourist Vehicles Rules. The Supreme Court held that the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended by Act 56 of 1969, introduced a distinct class of all‑India tourist permits under section 63(7) which can be obtained directly from the State Transport Authority without any pre‑existing contract‑carriage permit or endorsement, and that the 1967 rules were inapplicable. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, the original permits restored, and the appeals were allowed. The Court also noted that on expiry of the original permits, fresh applications would be treated as renewals under section 58.

Issues considered

Whether a pre‑existing contract‑carriage permit is a prerequisite for obtaining an all‑India tourist permit under section 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Whether the 1967 Orissa Tourist Vehicles Rules are applicable to applications for all‑India tourist permits.
Whether the appellants’ applications were incomplete for the purpose of granting the permits.

Legislation cited

Amending Act 56 of 1969s. 2(25), s. 2(29A), s. 2(33)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 44, s. 46, s. 49, s. 50, s. 51, s. 57, s. 58, s. 59, s. 59-A, s. 60, s. 61, s. 63(7), s. 64, s. 68
Orissa Tourist Vehicles Rules, 1967s. Rule 3(2), s. Rule 3(3), s. Rule 3(4)

Subjects

All‑India tourist permitContract carriage permitMotor Vehicles ActState Transport AuthorityStatutory interpretationTourismEndorsement

Judgment

I

• A
ASHUTOSH SWAIN ETC. ETC.

v•
• STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ORS.
B
March J, 1985

(D. A. DESAI AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, 11.J

All-India. Ptrmlt.J, concept of-Whether the holder of an existing
contract carrlilge permit alone Is eligible to mllke an appfl1at/on for entlorse-
ment of his existing permit enabling the permit holder to p/7 a tourist rehlcle
c
on all-India operation and not new applicants for the co11trtUl·c•rriare 1ermlt.J
.... -Orlssa Tourist Vdi</<1 Ru/•, 1967, Rule 3 (2), (3) and (-t) appllcabillty •f
-Motor Vehlcle.1 A61, 19J9 section 63 (7) as Introduced b7 amendlnz Act S6
af 1969 with effect from 1st October, 1970 read with sections 1 (2$), 2 (29-A),
2 (33), 49, 50, 51, 57, 58, S9, 60, 61 and 63 (7), scope of D

In response to an advertisement Oated 25th June, 1914 issued by the
State Transport Aotbority, Orissa inviting as:iptications in the prescribed
forms, from the operators for all-India Tourist Permit. a number of inten-
ding operators including the appellants submitted their applications and at E
the meeting held on February 2, 191S, the State Transport Authority
granted to the appellants all-India Tourist Permits for omnibus with passen-
ger capacity not exceeding 29. Some of the applicants who failed to obtain
a permit filed three appeals being M. V. Appeals Nos. 15, 16 and 17 a11
or. 1975 to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under !ICC. 64 (2) of the
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Appellate Tribunal di!!!mi!!ISC(I a11 the
appeals and confirmed the order made by the State Tran!port Authority F
granting all-India tourist permits to the appellants. Three uosuccessful
appHcants for permit filed three writ petitions styled as C.J.C. No. 381, 182
and 881, al1 of 1976 questionina- the correctness of the order a:ranting the
permit and dismissal of their appeals in the High Court of Orissa. A Divi-
sion Bench of the High Court, by a common judgment, a II owed all the three
writ petition• quashing and setting aside the order of the State Transport
Authority. Cor.scquentJy, these appellants surrendered their permits. Hence G
these three appeala by special leave. During the pendcncy of the11e appeals,
the appellants were granted temporary all·India tourist permits in
compliance with tha interim orders ma,'e by the Court,

Allowing tho appeals, the Covrt
u
2 SUPRBMJ! COURT REPORTS (1985) 3 S.C.R.

A HELD : 1.1 It was not necessary that the applicants for an all-India
tourist permit must have a pre-existing contract carriage permit which could
could be endorsed so as to convert it into all·lndia tourist permit. [1 IB-C]

1.2 By introducing sub.section 7 in section 63 of the Motor Vehicles
•
Act the concept of all-India permit to be granted by a State Transport
Authority of a State within tbC limits of the qaota prescribed by the Central
B
Government which would enable the holder of the permit to operate in the
whole of India, was introduced, for the first time with effect from Ist •
October, 1970. The underlying object for creating this new class of permit
was to promote tourism and to remove the barrier caused by the earlier
f.ystem under which if a tourist vehicle is hired by a tourist party for
n1oving from State to State, the vehicle cannot be taken to another State
c from the place of commencement of journey unless a valid contract carriage
permit of that State is obtained or the existing permit is counter-signed.
(60°H, 7A·B]

1.3 An application for an all-India tourist permit bas to be processed
in accordance with the provisions of sections 49, SO, $1; 57, 38, 59, 60,
61 and 63 (7). An all-India tourist permit is primarily a contract carriage
0 permit but while the ordinary contract carriage permit can be granted by
the Regional Transport Authority, for operation within local jurisdiction, or
when counter-signed by Regional Transport Authority of adjacent area in
more than one such jurisdiction but not at any rate outside the State and
not in any case on an all-India basis. To this e'liteot, an ordinary contract
carriage permit differs from an all-India tourist permit but an all-India
tourist permit is none-the-less a contract carriage permit. Sub~section (7)
E of section 63 on the other hand confers power on the State Transport
Authority to grant an all· India tourist permit which in effect is a contract
carriage permit but which permits plying of tourist vehicle throughout India.
Even for obtaining such a permit; section 51 will apply with this modifica ..
tion that the application for aJl ..India tourist permit has to be made to
State Transport Auth Jrity of the State in which their permit is sought. This
scheme of Jaw nowhere expressly or by necessary implicat.~on suggests that
F an applicant for an all~India totirist permit must of necessity or as a pre-
requisite have a contract carriage permit which alone can be endorsed for
the purpose of a11-Iadia operation. Sub-section (7) of section 63 if read
thus would render nugatory the affirmative provision that on a proper appli-
cation being made and legally processed, the State Transport Authority can
grant an all .. Jodia tourist permit. [6D1 7E-H, SC-D] ,
1.4 The fact that an application for an all-India tourist permit bas to
G
be made under section 49 which prescribes procedure for obtaining a cont-
ract carriage permit, because in substance an all-India tourist permit is
none-the-less a contract carriage permit but with a much wider area of
operation, however, does not permit an inference that before obtaiaing an
all·lndia tourist permit, the intending operator must obtain a contract
carrjage permit from the Regional Traasport Authority and then get it
endorsed from the State Transport Authority to make it valid for the whole
H or any part of India, Sub.section (7) of section 63 does not spea~ of any
ASHUTOSH SWAIN·- STATE TPT. AUTHORITY (Desai, J.) 3

endorsement on permit, though endorsement may be another mode or A
enlarging the atca or operation. It speaks of granting a permit valid for
the whole or any part' of India when granted by a St8te Transport Authority
in -exercise of. the power conferred by sub-section (7) of section 63 without
any further endorsement of any other authority. [aE-H]

.>,- 2. Sub-Rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 3 of the Orissa T 0urist Vehi·
B
cles Rules, 1967 had absolutely no application to the proceedings of the
State Transport Authority held for consideration of applications for all-
India Tourist Permit and granting them to the appellants. Those Rules
were enacted in the Year 1967 in exercise of the power conferred by section
68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.and were brought into operation on
19/20 June, 1967. These rules were made at a time when the only way to
enlarge the area or operation in respect of a permit was by· endorsement by
various authorities on tho original permit granted by a Transpor't Authority.
c
AIJ.Jndia tourist permit was not conceptualised by the time 19d7 Rules
were framed. Therefore, the rules at the relevant time catered to a situ·
ation when the area of operation specified in a contract carriage permit
could be enlarged by endorsement by authority other than tho grantor
only. [9F-H; IOA]
D
3. The applications of the appellants with all relevant information
were complete and the blanks in their application forms were irrelevant. In
the advertisement issued by the State Transport Authority on JUne 24,
1_974 inviting applications for permits in respect of omnibus authorising it
to ply as an all-India tourist vehicle in the prescribed forms, two prescribed
forms were anneXed. The first form was meant 'for those who had no
existing contract carriage permit and were applying straightaway for the E
first time for an all-India tourist permit. The form itself shows that the
application had to be made to the State Transport Authority for a contract
carriage permit"with an all·India operation. There was another form which
catered to the needs of the holder of the existing contract carriage pormits
who wanted the area of operation to be enlarged by converting an ordinary
contract carriage permit into all.Jndia tourist permit. For a fresh appli·
cant like the appe11ants who had no existing contract carriage permit, there-
fore, the blanks could not have been filled in. f!OF·H; I IA]

CtVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appenls Nos. 2498-2500
of 1978.
'
From the Judgment and Order dated 15th November, 1978 of
the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in O.T C. No. 381: 182 and G
881 of 1976.

Shanti Bhushan and P . .V. Misra for the appellants.

L. N. Sinha, R. K. Mehta and A. P. Mohanty, for the Respon-
dents.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) 3 S.C .R

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'
DESAI, J. These three appeals are directed against the common
judgment rendered by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in three •
writ petitions styled as C.J.C. No. 381, 182 and 881, all of 1976
B moved by the appellants in these appeals. A common question of
law permeates these three appeals and therefore, factual matrix will
be extracted from C. A. No. 2499/78 filed by one Mr. Ashutosh
Swain as representative of the facts necessary for disposal of these
appeals.·

State Transport Authority, Orissa issued an advertisement
c dated June 24, 1974 inviting applications in the prescribed form for
endorsement in the permit of the motor cabs or omnibuses enabling
the· holders of the permit to ply the vehicle as a tou1ist vehicle with
all-India operation. In other words, applications were invited from
the operators for all-India tourist permit. The last date for recei·
D ving the applications was July 13, 1974 In response to the adver·
tisement number of intending operators including the appellants in
these appeals submitted their applications for grant of all-India
tourist permit to the concerned authority within time. The State
Transport Authority processed these applications and disposed of
the applications at its meeting held on Feb. 2, !975. The appellants
herein were granted all-India tourist permits for omnibus with'
E passenger capacity not exceeding 29. Some of the applicants who
failed to obtain a permit filed three appeals being M. V. Appeals
Nos. 15, 16 and 17, all of 1975 to the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal(' Appellate Tribunal' for short) under Sec. 64 (2) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 I Act for short). The Appellate Tribunal
dismissed all the appeals and confirmed the order made by the State
F Transport Authority granting all-India tourist permits to the appel-
lants .. Thtee writ petitions came to be filed by three unsuccessful
applida~ts for permit questioning the correctnes' of the order gran·
ting the permit and dismissal of their appeals A Division Bench
of the High Court by a common judgment allowed all the three writ
petitions quashing and setting aside the order of the State Transport
G Appellate Tribunal as well as the State Transport Authority. Conse-
quently, these appellants surrendered their permits. Hence these
three appeals by •pecial leave. During th~ pendency of these appeals,
appellants were granted temporary all-India tourist p'ermits in
compliance with the interim orders made by this Court.
..
.'
!·
Ai!HllTOSH SWAIN v. STAtB TPT. AUTHORITY (Dasai, J.) 5

Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel who led o.n. behalf of '· A
the appellants urged that the High Court erred in holding that only
the holder of an existing contract carriage permit alone was eligible
• to make an application for endorsement of his existing per~it
enabling the permit holder to ply a tourist vehicle on all-India
operation, and consequently quashing the all-India tourist permits
granted to the appellants on the sole ground that the appellants did B
not have or hold existing contract carriage permit. ·It was next
contended that the High Court was further in error in holding that
th.e applications made by the appellants were incomplete as some
, . of
the columns were found blank. It was further submitted that the
High Court was in error in relying upon sub-rule~ (2); (3) and t4)
of Rule 3 of the Orissa Tourist Vehicles Rules, 1967 (1967 Rules .. C
for short) because the concept of all-India tourist permit 'received
for the first time a legal format on the introduction of sub-s. (7) in
Sec. 63 of the Act by Amending Act 56 of· 1969 which c~me . into
force on October I, 1970;

The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act forbids 'an owner .of a
transport vehicle to use or permit the use of a vehicle in any· public
place (whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any 'passeng~r
or goods) save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted
or countersigned by ·the authority therein mentioned. aut.ltorising,,t6e
use of the vehicle in the place and in the manner ·in which the
vehicle is to be used. The expression 'transport vehicle; is defined
E
in Sec. 2 (33) of the Act to mean 'a public service vehicle or ~ g~ods
vehicle'. 'Public service vehicle' is defined in Sec. 2 (25) . of the
Act to mean 'any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the
· carriage of passengers for hire or reward., and includes a motor cab,
l ~.· contract carriage, and stage carriage'. - Thus the scheme of the Act
~, \
envisages three kinds of permits in respect of a public · t ervice F
vehicle, namely, permit for the use of motor cab or a permit to' ilse
an omnibus for contract carriage or a permit to use .the .same as· a
stage carriage. Sec. 46 provides for application to be. '·made f~r
• stage carriage permit. The holder of a stage carriage permit 'can
use the vehicle to carry passengers for hire or reward at separate
fares paid by or for individual passengers; either for the who.le
G
journey or for stages of the journey. The second kind of perrnii in
respect of a public senice vehicle is the one contemplated by Sec.
49 and styled as 'contract carriage permit.' A vehicle In respect of
which there is a contract carriage permit can be used for carrying
passengers for hire or reward under a contract· express or implied ;
for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate H
sbi>illlME ooutrr alli>oars h98SJ 3 S.C.R.
A of sum-(i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any
route or distance, or (ii) from one point to another, and in either
case without stopping to pick up, or set down along the line of route
passengers not included in the contract, and includes a motor cab •
notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate fare8. By the
Amending Act 56 of 1969, a concept of a tourist permit for a tourist
B vehicle was introduced in the Act. 'Tourist vehicle' is defined in
Sec. 2 (29A) to mean 'a contract carriage constructed or adapted
and' equipped and maintained in accordance with such specification
as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify in that behalf'. By the same Amending Act, sub.s. (7) of
Sec. 63 was introduced enabling State Transport Authority of any
c
State to grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India, in
respect of such number of tourist vehicles as the Central Government
may, in respect of that State, specify in this behalf, and such appli-
calions have to be dealt with according to the provisions of Sections
49, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 59-A, 60, 61 and 64. Section 44 confers
D power on the State Government to set up such transport authorities
in the State being State Transport Authority and Regional Trans-
port Authority. The State Transport Authority will have its juris-
diction over the whole State and the State will be divided into
various regions in respect of which a Regional Transport Authority ,
will be specified. Any one desiring to obtain either a stage carriage
E permit or a contract carriage permit has to apply to the Regional
Transport Authority in whose jurisdiction the vehicle is sought to be
operated. Sec. 63 provides that permit granted by the- Regional
Transport Authority of any region, shall not be valid in any other
region unless the permit has been counter-signed by the Regional
Transport Authority of that region and a permit granted in one
F State shall not be valid in any other State unless c:ounter-signed by
the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regio-
nal Transport Authority concerned. This scheme of law would
manifestly reveal that a permit without the necessary counter-
signatures as hcreinabove indicated, enabling the permit-holder to
G
have the whole of India as its area of operation was unknown to •
the Act. By introduction of sub-sec. (7) in Sec. 63, the concept of
a permit to be granted by a State Transport Authority of a State
within the limits of the quota prescribed by the Central Government
which would enable the holde• of the permit to operate in the whole
of India, was introduced. For the sake of brevity, this pe•mit is
H described as all-India tourist permit.
AsHtiTOSH SWAIN v. STATE ri>r. AUTiiOlUTY (Desai, J.) .7

Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 63 provides that for obtaining such a
permit as envisaged therein which .enables the holder of such a
permit to ply vehicle as a tourist vehicle in the whole of India has
to make an application to the State Transport Authority constituted
for the State under Sec. 44. The underlying object for creating
this new class of permit was to promote tourism. If a tourist vehicle
B
is hired by a tourist party for moving from State to State, the vehfole
cannot be taken to another State from the place of commencement
of journey unless a valid contract carriage permit of that State is
obtained or the existing permit is counter-signed. This would
impede tourism causing inconvenience to the tourists. To remove
this barrier, Parliament introduced sub-sec. (7) in Sec. 63 envisaging
a new kind of permit to be granted by the State Transport Autho- c
rity of the State within the prescribed quota which would enable the
holder of the permit to ply the tourist vehicle in the whole or any
part of India. The impediment in the free flow of tourist traffic was
sought to be suitably removed by this provision.

Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 63 further provided that an application for · D
such a permit has to be made to the State Transport Authority from
whom the permit is sought to be obtained. The State Transport
Authority has to process the application in the manner prescribed in
the sections set out in sub-s.(7), which amongst others includes Sec.
49. Sec. 49 provides for making an application for a contract E
carriage permit. Therefore, an all-India tourist permit is primarily
a contract carriage permit but while the ordinary contract carriage
permit can be granted by the Regional Transport Authority, for
operation within local jurisdiction, or when countersigned by Regio-
nal Transport Authority of adjacent area in more than that one such
.
jurisdiction but not at any rate outside the State and not in any
. case
. F
on an all-India basis. To this extent, an ordinary contract c~rriage
permit differs from an all.India tourist permit but an all-India
tourist permit is none-the-less a contract carriage permit. Sec. 50
prescribes the procedure for processing an application for con-
tract carriage permit. Sec. 51 confers power on the Regional
Transport Anthority . to grant contract carriage permit. Sub-s. (7)
of Sec. 63 on the other hand confers power on the State Transport G
Authority to grant an all· India tourist permit which in effect is a
contract carriage. permit bnt which permits plying of tourist vehicle
throughout India. Even for obtaining such a permit, Sec. 51 will
apply with this modification that the application for all-India tourist
permit has to be made to State Transport Authority of the State in
which the permit is sought. Such an application may be further "H
8 SU~REME COURt Ri!l'ORTS (19851 3 s.c.ll.

A processed according to the provision contained in Sec. 57 which
prescribes procedure for applying and granting permit. Sec. 58
prescribes duration of a permit and renewal of it. Sec. 59 sets out
general conditions attaching to all permits. Sec. 59-A prescribes
general form of permits. Sec. 60 confers power on the authority
granting tho permit to cancel or suspend permits. Sec. 61 makes
B
the permit heritable on the death of the holder and Sec. 64 provides
for appeals against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority
and the State Transport Authority. An Application for an all-India
tourist permit has to be processed in accordance with provisions
contained in sections set ont herein above.
c A resume or tho rolcvant proYisions and a brief outline or the
Scheme of th• Act sheds light on the concept of an all-India tourist
permit. ·This scheme oflaw nowhere expressly or by necessary
implicatioa su;gests that an applicant for an all-India tourist permit
must or necessity or as a pre-requisite have a contract carriage
D permit which alone can be endorsed for the purpose of all-India
operation. Sub-s. (7) of Sec. ''- if read thus would render nuga-
tory the affirmative provision that on a proper application being
made and legally processed, the State Tranport Authority can grant
an all-India touri1t permit. If sub·s. (7) of Sec. 63 is read as inter-
preted by the High Court, one will have to redraft the section to
read that the holder of a contract carriage permit may apply for an
all-India tourist permit. There is no warrant for reading the section
like this. Undoubtedly, an application for an all-India tourist permit
has to be made under Sec. 49 which prescribes procedure for
obtaining a contract carriage permit This ought to be so because
in substance an all-India tourist permit is none-the·less a contract
carriai:e permit but with a much wider area of operation. That
F however, does not permit an inference that before obtaining an all-
India tourist permit, the intending operator must obtain a contract
carriage permit from the Regional Transport Authority and then
get it endorsed from the State Transport Authority to make it valid
. for the whole or any part of India. Sub·s. (7) of Sec. 63 does not
speak of any endorsement on permit. It speaks of granting a
..
permit. Endorsement may be another mode of enlarging the area
G
of operation, But that is not contemplated by sub·s. (7) of Sec·. 63.
It speaks of granting a permit valid for the whole or any part of
india when granted by a State Transport Authority in exercise of
the power conferred by Sub.sec. (7) of Sec. 63 without any further
endorsement of any other authority. Therefore, with respect, the
High Court was not right in observing that 'it is clear from the
ASHUTOSH SWAIN v. STATE TPT. AUTHOTiTY (Desai, j.) •g

aforesaid provision of the rules and Schedule I that an holder of a A
permit issued in the State in relation to a motor cab or nn omnibus
is only competent to apply to the State Transport Authority for
endorsement on that permit to the effect that the vehicle to which
the permit relates is a tourist vehicle.' There is nothing in sub-s. (7)
of Sec. 63 to warrant this construction. The High Court unfortu-
nately did not. look at the substantive provision enacted in sub-·s.' (7) B
of Sec. 63, did not analyse it to ascertain its width and content but
merely referred to rules which would be presently shown to be not
applicable and reached the· conclusion on the meaning of sub-s. (7)
of Sec. 63 without reference to it.
c
The High Court referred to sub. els. (2J, (3) and (4) of Rule
3 of 1967 Rules. Rule 3 confers power ·On the State Transport
Authority to endorse any porn1it' granted in the State in relation
to any motor cab or omnibus to the effect that the vehicle to which
the permit relates is an all-India tourist vehicle. Sub-rule (2l
provides that 'any person who holds a permit issued in the State D
in relation to a motor cab or an omnibus may apply in the. forms
specified in Schedule I, to the State Transport Authority for an
endorsement on the permit to the effect that the vehicle to which the
permit relates is a tourist ~ehicle> Sub-rule (3) provides that an
application under sub-rule (2) shall be made in the manner provi-
ded therein and within tlie time limit prescribed therein. Sub.rule'
( 4) provides for the procedure before granting the necessary endor.
sement. Having referred to these three sub-rules, the High Court
held that there must be a pre-existing contract carriage permit .
granted in the State which alone can be endorsed subsequently as
·v an all-India tourist permit. These rules were enacted in the year
·r· 1967 and were put into operation on !9/20 June, 1967. They were
~-·. F
enacted in exercise of the power conferred by Sec. 68 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. Sec. 68 confers powers on a State Government to
make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of
Chapter IV. These rules were made at a time when the only way
<
to enlarge the area of operation in respect. of a permit was endorse-
ment by various authorities on the original permit granted by a G
Transport Authority. All-India tourist permit was not conceptualised
by the time 1967 Rules were framed. All-India tourist permit as
contemplated by sub-s. (7) of Sec. 63 was not on the statute book at
the time when these rules were enacted. Therefore, the rules at the
relevant time caters to a situation when the area of operation
H
1() SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1985) 3 S.C.R.

A specified in a contract carriage permit could be enlarged by endorse-
ment by authority other than the grantor. The concept of all-India
tourist permit without any necessity of any endorsement by any
authority save and except the grantor was then not known to law.
In order te> avoid endorsements by various authorities so as to
enlarge the area of operation of a contract carriage permit and with
B avowed object of facilitating unimpeded free flow of tourist traffic
the concept of all-India tourist permit was introduced with effect'
from October 1, 1970. It also introduced a new type of vehicle
specified as tourist vehicle. The aforementioned rules enacted in
June 1967 when an all-India tourist permit not necessitating any
endorsement save the grant of it by the State Transport Authority
c and the concept of a tourist vehicle were foreign to the Motor
Vehicles Act cannot be held to apply unless a provision to that
effect was made in the substantive enactment conferring power on
the State Transport Authority to grant an all.India tourist permit
which needs no endorsement for operation throughout India. One
cannot read the concept of endorsement envisaged in the 1967 Rules
D in respect of a permit that can be granted as an all-India tourist
permit under sub·s.(7) of Sec. 63 of the Act by insisting upon,
as per the scheme of rules a pre-existing contract carriage
permit which alone can be endorsed. Therefore the conclusion is
inescapable that these rules were not at all attracted while consider-
ing the applications for all-India tourist permit made by the appel-
E lants under sub-s. (7) of Sec. 63.
The High Court with respect fell into another error when it
failed to take notice of the advertisement issued by the State
Transport Authority on June 24, 1974 inviting applications
for permits in respect of omnibus authorising it to ply as an
all-India tourist vehicle in the prescribed form. Two prescribed
F forms were annexed to the advertisement. The High Court
overlooked the first form and only took notice of the second
form. The first form was meant for those who had no existing
contract carriage permit and were applying straightway for the
first time for an all-India tourist permit. The form itself shows
that the application had to be made to the State Transport Autho-
G
rity for a contract carriage permit with an all-India operation.
There was another form which catered to the needs of the holder
of the existing contract ~arriage permits who wanted the area
of operation to be enlarged by converting an ordinary contract
carriage permit into all-India tourist permit. After referring
to the second form, the High Court found fault with the applica-
u
ASEIUToS11 SWAIN v. STATE TPT. AUTHORiTY (Desai, i.) 11
tions made by the present appellants by observing that some A
of the columns were left blank. For a fresh applicant who
had no existing contract carriage permit, the blanks could not have
been filled in. This is another unfortUnate error in which the
High Court fell while granting a writ of certiorari quashing the
order under which permits were granted to the applicants.
B
Having thus examined the various aspects which appealed to
the High Court in reversing the decision granting all-India tourist
0 permit to the appellants, we are of the opinion that none of them
can be sustained. Fir;tly, it was not necessary that the applicants
for an all-India tourist permit must have a pre-existing contract c
carriage permit which alone could be endorsed so as to convert it
into an all-India tourist permit. Secondly, the applications of the
appellants for all relevant information were complete and. the blanks
were irrelevant and lastly sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 3 had
absolutely no application to the proceedings of the State Transport D
Authority held for consideration of applications . for all-India tourist
permit and granting them to the appellants. These were the grounds
on which the High Court reversed the decision of the State Trans-
port Authority and the State Transport AppeUate Tribunal. But as
these reasons are unsustainable, these appeals will have to be
~-- allowed. Accordingly these three appeals are allowed and the judg- E
ment of the High Court is quashed and set aside and the decision of
the State Transport Authority granting all-India tourist permits to
the appellants is restored.

As the appellants surrendered' their all-India tourist permits,
when they lost in the High Court and they plied their vehicles on
temporary permits, it must be held that if the duration of the origi- F
nal permits has expired, they have to make a fresh appiication for
all-India tourist permit but in that event they will be treated as appil·
cations for renewal of all-India tourist permit as contemplated by
Sec. 58_ of the Act and not as fresh applications under Sec. 63(7)
read with Sec. 49. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no
order as to costs.
- G

S.R.
Appeals allowed.