Holding

Section 62 does not empower any authority to grant temporary All‑India tourist permits; only regular permits may be issued under Section 63(7).

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether a Regional Transport Authority or a State Transport Authority could issue temporary All‑India tourist permits under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The State of Karnataka had issued 36 regular All‑India tourist permits under Section 63(7) and rejected applications for temporary permits, which were later granted by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal invoking Section 62. The High Court set aside those temporary permits, prompting appeals and special leave petitions. The Court held that Section 62 confers power only on Regional Transport Authorities for short‑term permits within a limited area and does not extend to temporary All‑India tourist permits. It further ruled that Section 44(3) does not expand the definition of "Regional Transport Authority" to include the State Transport Authority, and the omission of Section 62 from the list of sections applicable to Section 63(7) indicates legislative intent to exclude temporary permits. Consequently, the appeals and petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 empowers any transport authority to grant temporary All‑India tourist permits.
Whether the expression "Regional Transport Authority" in Section 62 includes the State Transport Authority under Section 44(3).
Whether the omission of Section 62 from the provisions listed under Section 63(7) precludes the grant of temporary All‑India tourist permits.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 44(3), s. 45, s. 46, s. 49, s. 50, s. 51, s. 54, s. 57, s. 58, s. 59, s. 59-A, s. 60, s. 61, s. 62, s. 63(7), s. 64, s. 68
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969
Motor Vehicles (Mysore Amendment) Act, 1973 (Karnataka Act No. 25 of 1975)s. 45(2), s. 45(2A)

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Acttemporary permitAll‑India tourist permitRegional Transport AuthorityState Transport Authoritystatutory interpretationtourism promotiontransport law

Judgment

?40
S. KANNAN & OTHERS ETC.
v. '
"
SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

B August 29, 1983
1

[D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J

Motor Ve/tic/es Act, 1939-Sec. 63(7)-Al/ lndia Tourist Permit. Sec. 62
-Interpretation of. Sec. 62 does not co1nprehend power to gfant te1nporary. all
c India Tourist Permit-Expression Regional Transport Authofity in Sec. 62 does
·not comprehend State Transport Authority. Sec. 62(1) does not provide for grant
Of temporary permits pending grant of a regular permit. ·

In order to promote tourism, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act for
.short) was ameded in 1970 and sub-sec. (7) was inserted in s. ()3 empowering
D the State Transport Authority in each state to grant permits valid for the whole
or any part of India in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as May be
specified by the Central Government. The Central ,Governmerit specified that
every State Transport Authority may grant such permit not exceeding 50 in
number. The State Transport AuthorHy of Karnataka issued 36 such permits
and there were 14 vacancies. Sev1~ral persons applied for temporary a.II India
tourist permits to the State Transport Authority. The State Transport. Autho~
E rity rejected the applications. On appeal the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal purporting to exercise power under· s. 62 of the Act granted tempo·
rary all India tourist permits. On writ petitions filed by some of the holders of
regular permits under s. 63(7) the High Court quashed and set aside the
decision Of the State Transport 1\.ppellate Tribunal. The appellants a·nd the
petitioners who had obtained or " 1ere desirous of obtaining temporary all India
F tourist permits challenged the correctness of the decision of the High Court. !-
The appellants urged: (1) that the Regional Transport Authority can grant
temporary all-India tourist permits for the reasons mentioned in sec. 62; (2) that
the State Transport Authority of Karnataka can grant temporary permits for
the vacancies till regular all-India tourist permits were granted; (3) that in view
of the provisions of sec. 44(3), the expression Regional Transport Authority
G would either comprehend State Transport Authority or would not atleast
exclude tlfe power conferred on the lower authority to be enjoyed by the higher
B:uthority; (4) that as far as the State of Karnataka was concerned, on the.
issue of notification under sub-sec, (2A) of sec. 45 the expression •Regional
Transport Authority' in sec. 62 will ~lso comprehend State Transport
Al.!thority, and, (5) that th~ expression 'such permit' in sec. 63(7)_ could only
. meail rC8ular or all India tourist permit and the temporary all India tourist
H permit was not to be catered to by sec. 63(7) but by sec. 62 and therefore sec.
62 was ri8htiy omitte.d from the array of sections set out in sec. 63(7) .
. ,
Dismissing the appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions,
i. KAMNAN '· Ji.l.ll.T.A.
HELD : There is no powcr to 1mit' temporary all India touri.st pmllit
under sec. 62. [757 E] A
An Authority having jurisdiction over a ~omparatively sma1l ar~ is
'favourably placed to notice a situation as contemplated by sec. 62. "Therefore,
sec. 62 confers power on the Regional Transport Authority, the jurisdiction_ of
which extends over a region which is u'ually a small part of the State to gr-ant
temporary permits to operate vehicles for a Short period to meet ·some tempo~
rary or emergency requirement or pending the renewal of an already granted
B
permit. There is intrinsic evidence in the laneuage of sec. 62 that this power
was meant to be used by Regional Transport Authority for dealing with a
situation within its small area. If Regio?al Transport Authority is not compe-
tent to grant regular all India tourist permit, rio canon of construction Would
permit the Court to cloth• µim with power to arant temporary all India. tourist
permit. · [752 A·D] c
The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation· v. The RtWionaJ
Transport Authority, Raipur, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 786 rofcrred to.

Section 62( 1)(9) does not pi"ovide for grant of temporary permits pendin&
erant of a regular permit. On the contrary the first proviso to sec. 62(1) makes
what is imPiicit in cl. (d) explicit by providina that a temporary permit under
sec. 62 shall, in no case, be granted· in respect of any route or area specified in
an application for the grant of a new permit under sec. 46 or sec. 54 during
the pendency of the application. It may DC recalled that sec. 46 provide~ f9r
an application for a stage Carriaec and sec. 54 provides for an application
for public carrier's permit. Therefore, in no· case a temporary pormit E
can be granted under the section pendina arant of or renewal ot a
contract carriage· permit. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 62, h~wever, carves out a.µ
exception where a temporary contract carriage permit can be granted in_ respect
of any route or area where no permit could be issued by reason of an order ~f
the court or, other competent authority restrainina. the issue of t_he same. That
is not the case here. Therefore, there is no power to grant a temporary contract
carriage permit and ipso facto ·th• temporary all India tourist permit und~r r
sec. 62. [753 D·G]
...
Sec. 44(3) merely provides that a State Transport Authority can perform
the duties of a Regional Transport Authority Where ihere is no such '.A..~thority
or where, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority,
to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more· tcgions. G
In the instant case none of these conditions ·under which a State Transport
) Authority can perforn1 the functions and djschargc the duties of a Regional
Transport Authority arc satisfied, and therefore, H is difficult to accept the
submission that the expression 'Regional Transport Authority' used in sec. 62
will comprehend State Transport Authority. EVen if in its appliCa'.tio'n, the
Act with its local amendment to the Sta~eo of Karnataka sec. 62 would enable H
the State Transport Authority to· issue a temporary permit this would hardly
make any difference because the power t9 grant temporary permit under sec. 62
in the circumstances and eventualities therein mentioned would not comprehe!'d
•

74~ SliPREMll COURT REPORTS (1983) 3 S.C.R·

the power to grant temporary all India tourist permit because none of the con-
,
A ditiona under which the same can be granted would be attracted and the :state
)
Transport Authority ·will have no material for satisfaction of one or the other
conditions set out in sec. 62 ·which would ellable it to grant such a permit.
There· is no express provision in· the Act which provides ·that the State
Transport Authority can always and without any fetter enjoy the power of the
Regional Transport AU.thority and in the absence of such provision it is difficult ,
to read ~erely on the basis of vertical hierarchy wherever the lower authority
B is mentioned in the statute, the higher authority be included therein.
[752 E·H]; 753 A·B]

The whole concept of granting temporary all lndia tourist permit is
foreign to the concept of all India tourist permit. An all India touris permit
is none-the-less a ~ontract carriage permit but while contract carriage permit
c can be granted for any vehicle not required to be specially adapted _for the
purpose, a contract carr.iage perm·it for all India operation as envisaged by
sec. 63(7) can only be granted in respect of tourist vehicle·, and it appears that
it requires a substantial financial inv:estment for adapting a vehicle as a tourist
vehicle. This intrinsic evidence shows that such huge or heavy outlay cannot
be imposed on an applicant by giving him temporary all lndia tourist permit
which can if at all be granted for-a period extending 4 months. [756 E·G]
D
If sec. 62 were to be a proviso to sec. 63(7) and therefore, one can
conceive of granting a temporary all India tourist permit for meeting a parti-
cular temporary need, it is difficult to envisag_e a partieular need of an all India
variant which can be noticed by State .Transport Authority of one State and )
such authority can proceed s_ide-tracking all relevant provisions to grant
temporary all India tourist permit. [756 H; 757 A] _,
E
ORIGINAL JURISDICTioN: Writ Petitions Nos. 7897-7901, 8077-
86, 8115-34, 7969·78, 4591-4598 of 1983, 788-92, 1360, 2225, 2365-
67 of 1982, 7924-52,. 8049-50, 7963-68, 8087·92, 8093-97, 8137-69
5824, 5818, 5233, 4578, 4577, 4574, 4576, 8047·48 of 1983, 7490-92/
F 82, 3560, 5625, 5830, 6074-75, 6083-90, 6098-6101, 6102·29, 6180-88,
7046-47, 7495, 7613-14 7622·26, 7656-60, 7663-68, 7670-82, 8003,
8005, 8006, 4583, 8434·40, 8427-33, 5356-64, 7618-21, 7655, 8391·93,
3326, 3939, 6133-79 of 1983, 9347, 7800 and 9803 of 1982.

(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).
G
WITH

_ Civil Appeal No. 31-34 of 1981.
H
Appeals from the judgment and Ord'er dated the 18th December,
1980 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 21090 and
21339 of 1980.
s. KANNAN v. K.s.R.T.A. (Desai, J.) 743
AND
A
. Civil Appeals Nos. 173S·06 of 1981

Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and Order dated the
19th May, 1981 of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Bangalore in Appeal Nos. 643 and 644 of 1980. B
AND

Special Leave Petition No. 2275 of 1~82.

From the Proceedings dated 6th October, 198 l 6f the Secretary, c
Karnataka State Transport Authority Bangalore, in Subject No. 165_
of 1981.

For the Appearing Parties :
D
K. K. Venugopa/, R. B. Datar & Ms. Madhu Moo/ Chandani, .
K. N. Bhatt, A. T. M. Sampath, P. N. Rama/ingam, B. P. Singh,
S.S. Java/i, N. K. Sharma, Jfarbans .Lal, R. N. Poddar, N. S: Das
Bahl, V. G. Mehta, V. K. Verma, P. R. Mridul; Vineet Kumar,
C. S. Vaidyanathan, N. Nettar, B. R. L. Iyengar, P. R. Ramasesh,
P. K. Pillai, R. P. Bhatt, Swaraj Kaushal, M. Veerappa and A. K .. E
Sharma.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DESAI, J. Appellants and petitioners in_ this group of appeals F
and special leave petition and writ petitions are persons who have
obtained or were desirous of obtainin& temporary tourist permits
valid for the whole of India styled as 'All India Tourist Permit'.

The chronology of events leading to the appeals and writ peti·
tions may be briefly stated. Sub·sec. (7) was inserted in Sec. 63 of G
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act for short) ·with effect from
'October I, 1970 empowering State Transport Authority in each State,
for the purpose .of promoting tourism, 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,
H
specify in this behalf. The Central Government specified that the
State Transport . Authority in each State may grant permit as
744 SUPREME COURT RllPORTS (1983) 3 s.c.R.

contemplated by Sec. 63 (7) not exceeding 50 in number.
A Armed with this power, the State Transport Anthority of
' ~rnataka State in all granted 36 such permits. There were thus·
14 vacancies. It appears that several persons applied for temporary
all India tourist permits to the State Transport· Authority of•
Karnataka State. These applications for the permits were rejected
and some of the applicants who were respondent Nos. 3 to II in the
B writ petition in the High Court and who are appellants in this Court
preferr~d appeals to State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The
appellate tribunal purporting to exercise power under Sec. 62 of the
Act granted temporary all India tourist permits io them. Some of
the holders of regular permits granted under sec. 63 (7) of the Act
c filed writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka, By a common
· Judgment the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ
petitions, inier alia, on the ground that the grant of a permit under
Sec. 63 (7) must be in accordance with the provisions of the various
sections set out therein which does not include Sec. 62 under which
alone temporary permit can be granted and therefore, grant of te~1·
D porary permits for tourist vehicles of all India .operat;on is not
.permissible. Accordingly, a writ ofcertiorary was issued, quashing
and setting aside the decision of the State Transport Appellate
Authority. On the request of the present appellants, the High Court )
· granted a certificate under Art. 134 A of the Constitution as in its
B view a substantial question of law of general importance, namely,
whether. a temporary permit can be granted in respect of a tourist
vehicle for all India operation, does arise and further in its· opinion
the question needs to he decided by the s·upreme Court. Hence some
appeals by certificate.

' Following the decision of the High Court, large number of
appeals pending before the State Transport Appellate Authority were
dismissed and the appellants whose appeals were dismissed have
approached this Court under Art. 136 of the Con·stitution. Further
a large number of writ petitions have been filed under Art. 32 of fhe
Constitution questioning the c.orrectness of the decision of various
G transport authorities refusing to .grant temporary .all India tourist
permits and praying for a writ of mandamus directing the State
Transport Authority of .various States to grant such permits. A
·'
further prayer in some of the writ petitions is to the.effect that that
H part of sub sec. (7) Qf,!l,ec. 63 which enables the Central Government
to prescribe a quota for each State in respect of all India tourist
permits, is violative of the Constitution and must be declared uncon·
stitutional.
s. KANNAN v. l!i.S.R.T.A (Desai, I.) 745

As common questions have been raised in the appeals, special
leave petitions and the writ petitions, they were heard together and A
are being disposed of by this common judgment•

.The narrow and the only question that was canvassed before us
is : whether there is power in any of the Transport Authorities as
enumerated in Sec. 44 of the Act to grant temporary all India tourist B
permits ? In other words, whether the power conferred by Sec. 62 of
the Act enabling the. Regional Transport Authority without following
the procedure laid down in ·Sec. 57, to grant temporary permit as
therein envisaged would comprehend the power to grant temporary
all India tourist permits ? We must frankly confess that thi~ neat
question of Jaw is none too easy of.answer and much can be said in .C
support of rival contentions.

At the outset, Jet it be made distinctly clear that there is no
nomenclature as regular or permanent alL India tourist permit. Sec.
63 (7) has specilied a permit that can be graµted by the State Trans- I)
port Authority of any State, subject to the quota fixed by. the Central
Government valid for the whole, or any part of India. In other
words, such a permit would enable the permit holder to undertake
an all India operation which for brevity's sake ma)' be described as
all India tourist permit. Sec. 63 (7) speaks of such permit which may·
be granted after complying with the various sections of the Act there- E
in set out. Such permits when granted may be styled as regular all
India tourist permit in contra~istinction to what the appellants and
_the petitioners seek as temporary all I.ndia tourist permit.

A brief resume of the reievant provisions of the. Act may shed F
lighi on the controversy raised before us. Expression. 'contract
carriage' is defined in Sec. 2 (3) to mean a motor vehicle which
carries a passenger or 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 or sum etc. 'Stage carriage' is defined in Sec. 2
(29) to mean a motor vehicle carrying or ~dapted to carry morn than
G
six persons excluding the driver which. carries passengers for hire or
reward at se.parate fares paid by· or for individual passengers, either
for the whole journey or for stages of the journey. E•pression
)ourist vehicle' is defined in Sec. 2(29 A) to mean a contract carriage
·constructed or. adapted and equipped and maintained in accor- H
dance with . such specifications as the State Government inay, by
not1ficat1on m the Official_ Gazette, specify in this behalf. The defini-
..
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983} 3 S.C.R.

, tion of 'tourist vehicle' was introduced by Amending Act 56 of 1969
A by which Sec. 63 '(7) was also introduced. Chapter IV bears the ·
heading 'Control of Transport Vehicles'. Sec. 42 prohibits owner of
a transport vehiclti to use the same in the public place save in
accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under the relevant
provisions of the A• It may lie recalled that transport vehicle
includes goods vehicle as weU as passenger vehicle. Thus no passenger
B vehicles can be used in any public place without a permit .. Sec. 44
requires the State Government to constitute various transport
.authorities in each State s1~cli as State Transport Authority, to·
exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub-sec.
(3) as also Regional Transport Authority to exercise and discharge
C· throughout such areas referred to as regions, as may be specified in
·the notification, powers and functions conferred on ·such authority.
It would appear that a State Transport Authority is to be constituted
for the whole .State. The State is to be divided into variou·s regions
and a Regional Transport Authority has to be constituted for one or
more of such regions. Th<l powers and functions of the State·
D Transport Authority are generally stated in sub-sec. (3) which include;
(a) the duty to co-ordinate and. regulate the activities and policies of
the Regional.Transport Authority, if any, of the State, (b) to perform
the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such )
authority and, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Trans-
port Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route·
E
common to two or more regions, (c) to settle the disputes and decide
all matters on which. differences of opinion arise between Regional
Transport Authorities, and (d) to ·discharge such other functions as
may be prescribed. Sec. 45 makes general provisions as to applica-
tions for permits. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 45 provides that notwithstanding !-
F anything contained in sub-sec. (I), the .State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, direct that in the case of any
vehicle or vehicles proposed to be used in two or more regions lying
in different States, the application under Sec. 45 (!) shall be made to
the State Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant
resides or bas his principal place of business. Sec. 46 specifies the
G contents of an application for a stage carriage permit. Sec. 49
prescribes the requirements of an application for a contract carriage
permit. One of the requirements is to specify the area for which the
permit is required. Primarily an application for a contract carriage
bas to be made to Regional Transport Authority as transpires from
H Secs. 50 and 51. It is necessary to notice this fact because an all
India tourist permit is none-the-less a contract carriage permit with
s. KANNAN v. K.S.R.T.A. (Desai, J.) 747

this difference that its area of operation is the whole of India. tt ·
would further transpire from a combined reading of Secs. 49, 50 and
51 that an application for a contract carriage permit with its opera· .
tional jurisdiction ihtra-State has to be made to the Regional ·
Transport Authority and if inter-State operation is contem•
plated, the application has to be made . to the State Transport
Authority Qf the region in which the appijcant resides or has his B
principal place of business as contemplated by Sec. 45 (2). This
becomes further manifest from the provisions of Sec. 63 (I) which
provides that except as· otherwise provided, a permit grantad by the
· Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in
any region, unless the permit bas been counter-signed by the Regional
Transport Authority of that other region and a. permit granted in any . • C
one State shall not be valid in any other State unless counter-signed
by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional
Transport Authority concerned. Sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 63 starts with
a non·obstante clause and it provides that notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-sec. (I), but subject to any rules that may be made
under this Act, the Regional Transport Authority of any one region
D
may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit in
•...1., relation to a public service vehicle for carrying a passenger or
passengers fcir hire or reward under a contract, express of implied for
the nse of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set
down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract. II
Then comes sub-sec. \7) of Sec. 63 which enables the State Transport
Authority to grant regular all India tourist permit. )t may be
extracted:
'
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(I), but subject to any rules that may be made under this
Act, any State Transport Authority may, for the purpose
or promoting tourism, 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 the provisions of Sections G
49, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 59-A, 60, 61 and 64 shall, as far as
may be, apply in relation to such permits."

There is a proviso to the section which is immaterial for the present
purpose.
H
Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 63 which confers power on a State
Transport Authourity to garnt regular all India tourist permit makes
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. (1983] 3 s.C.R. ·
..~

it obligatory that while granting such permits or in order to grant
A such ·perm1t or with a view to obtain such permit the applicant as
well as the concerned authority shall have to act in accord_ance. with
Secs. 49, SO, SI, 57, 58, 59, 59-A, 60, 61 and 64 as far as may, apply
in relation to such permits.

u· A reference to Sec, 62 at this stage is necessa1y 'because the
State Transport Appellate Authority reversed -the decision of the
Regional Transport Authority and directed grant of temporary
all India tourist permit under. the erroneous understanding that such
temporary permits can be granted under Sec. 62. Sec. 62 reads as
under,:
c
"62. Temporary permits - (I} A Regional Transport
Authority may without following the procedure laid down
in Section S7, grant permits, to be effective for a limited
period not in any case 'to exceed four months, to authorise
the use of a transport vehicle temporarily -
D
·(a) for the conveyance. of passengers on special occasions
such as to and from fairs and reiigious gather!ngs, ).
or

E (b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or

(c) "to meet a particular temporary need, or

(d) ·pending decision on. an application for the renewal of f-
F a permit, any may attach to any such permit any
condition it thinks fit :

'Provided that a temporary permit under this section
shall, in no case, be granted in respect of any route or
area specified in an application for the grant of a new
G permit under Section 46 or Section 54 during the
....
pendency of the application :

Provided further that a temporary permit under this
H •ection shall, in no case, be granted more than once in
respect of any route or area specified in an application for
the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such
application for renewaL
s. KANNAN v. K,S.R'T.A. (Desai, J.) 749

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (!), a temporary permit may be granted there- A
under in respect of any route or area where -

(i) no permit could be issued under Section 48 or
Section 51 or Section 54 fo respect of that route
or area by reason of an order of ·a court or, B
other competent authority restraining the issue
of the same, for a period not exceeding the
period for which the issue of the permit has _been
so restrained; or·

(ii) as a result of the suspension by a court ·or other c
competent authority of the permit of any vehicle
in respect of that route or area, there is no trans-
port vehicle of the same class with a valid permit,
in respect of that route or area, or there is no
adequate number of such vehicles in respect of D
that route or area, for a period not exceeding
the period of such suspension. : -

Provided that the number of transport vehicles in
respect of which the temporary permit is so granted shall
not exceed the m; :nber of veliicles in respect of which the E
issue of a permit has been restrained or as the case may
be, the permit has been suspended."

Translating these various provisions into functional
implementation, an applicant who desires to obtain a permit for a F
tourist vehicle has to make an application unde_r Sec. 63 (7). Such
an application has to be processed as ·required .by Sec. 49 which
would immediately imprint the application as an application for a
contract carriage permit with this difference that it shall have an all
India operation. If it is an application simpliciter for a contract
carriage permit, Sec. 50 would necessitate the application being made
G
to Regional Transport Authority, but if the contract carriage permit
is to be valid for an inter-State operation, obviously, the application
will have to be made to State Transport Authority. Sec. 63 (7) - also
requires that an application for all India tourist permit has to be H
made to State Transport Authority. Therefore, even though an appli-
cation for i;ontract carriage permit has ordinarily to be made to R.e-
~ional Transport Authority, if all India operation is clesired in respect .
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] 3 s.c.R.

of a tourist vehicle, the same has to be made to the State Transport
A Authority. This application has to be processed according to the
procedure prescribed in Sec. 50. A contract carriage permit other
than the one having an all India operation must specify the area or ·
the route or routes on which the permit holder can ply the vehicle
under the authority of contract carriage permit as required by Sec.
51. Permit contemplated by Sec. 63 (7) can be granted and shall be
B
effective without renewal for such period, not less than 3 years and
not more than 5 years, as th1e authority granting the permit may
specify. (See Sec. 58). In view of the power conferred by Sec. 60,
t!te transport authority which granted the permit will have the power
to cancel or suspend the same, if one or more of the conditions •
c prescribed in Sec. 60 are satisfied.

Sec. 63 (7) for the first time conferred power on the State
Transport Authority in a State to grant a permit which wili" enable
the permit holder to use the tourist vehicle for all India operation
without complying with sub .. sec. (!) of Sec. 63 which required
D countersignature of the State Transport Authority or the Regional
Transport Authority as the case may be of State or region other than
the one by which the permit is. granted, to undertake an operation in
the area within the jurisdiction of the counter-signing State Transport
Authority or Regional Transport Authority as the case may be.
E Therefore, unquestionably eve!l though the permit contemplated by
1
Sec. 63 (7) has a larger operational area, it is none the Jess a contract
carriage permit, and Sec. 63 (7) mandated that the authority granting
such permit will have to comply with all the sections except Sec. 62
which have to be complied with for obtaining a contract carriage
permit contemplated by Sec. 49. Why was Sec. 62 omitted from >-
F Sec. 63 (7) is the root question? ·

The High Court in this connection observed that "since sub·
section (6) of Sec .. 63 has provided for grant of special permits for
all India operation of contract carriages, it is reasonable to infer that ·
G the omission to mention Sec. 62 in the latter part of sub-sec. (7) of
Sec. 63 was deliberate and that the legislature did not intend grant
of temporary permits for tourist vehicles for all India operation."
This view is assailed on behalf of the appellants and the writ
· petitioners.
H
· It was contended 'that as an elaborate procedure is prescribed
for grant of stage carriage permit or contract carriage permit and
that it bein$ a prolix and time-consuming process, Sec. 62 keeping in
s. KANNAN v. K.S.R,T.A. (Desai, J.) 751

·view the urgent or emergent need to provide transport facilities to
travelling public, conferred power on Regional Transport Authority A
• to grant temporary permit to meet a particular temporary need or
for purposes of seasonal business or pending decision of an applica-
tion for the renewal of a permit. It was urged that if either a· stage
carriage or coutrac_t carriage permit can . be granted by a Regional
Transport Authority to meet a particular temporary need or pending
decision of an application for the renewal of a permit, the Regional B
Transport Authority can as well .grant temporary all India tourist
permit for the self same reasons.

There are two fallacies m the submissions on behalf of the
appellants and the writ petitioners. Sec. 62 confers power on the c·
Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit. A Regio·
nal Transport Authority is set up for a region. The jurisdiction of
the Regional Transport Authority extends over a region which is
usually a small part of the State because for the purposes of the Act
State has to be divided into regions-. Power to grant temporary D
permit iS conferred on Regional Transport Authority, amongst others,
. -· meet a particular temporary need. Regional Transport Authority
having jurisdiction over a comparatively small area may be able to
gauge, notice or appreciate a particular temporary need for which a
temporary permit can be granted for a period not exceeding 4 months
without following the procedure prescribed in Sec. 57. The same E
power can- be enjoyed pending the renewal of an already granted
permit. By its very nature Sec. 62 caters to a situation where permits
to operate vehicles may be granted for a short period to meet some
temporary or emergency requirement or where time is likely to be
spent iu processing an application for renewal of a permit and in tlie F
interregnum the travelling public may not be put to inconvenience on
sccount of non·availability of vehicles with permits. (See. The
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. The Regional
Transport Authority, Raipur).(1) An au(hority having jurisdiction
over a comparatively small area is favourably placed to notice a
situation as contemplated by Sec. 62. Therefore, the power is con- G
ferred on Regional Transport Authority and not the State Transport
Authority to grant temporary permit in the circumstances set out
in Sec. 62, because State Transport Authority has jurisdiction over
the whole State, and the State Transport Authority exercising the
power under Sec. 63 (7) will have to have &n all India perspective. H

(I) [196513 S.C,R, 786.
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983} 3 S. C.R.

Therefore, the statute did not confer such power on State Transport
Authority because by its very nature the Regional Transport
Authority having jurisdiction over a comparatively smaller area
would be better equipped to appreciate and deal with the needs. of
the travelling public of a temporary character or pending the renewal
of a permit. There is intrinsic evidence in the language of· Sec. 62
that it was meant to be used by Regional Transport Authority for
B dealing with a situation within its small area. If Regional Transport
Authority is not competent to grant regular all India tourist permit,
no canon of construction would permit the Court to clothe him wit)l
. power to grant temporary all India tourist permit. Even if the dictum
that the power to grant final relief inheres the power to grant interim
c relfof can be extended to executive authority, yet when .the Regional
Transport Authority has no power to grant regular all India tourist
permit, it would be impossible to hold that such a1,1thority has none
the Jess the power to grant temporary all lndia tourist permit. Tbere·
fore, tho very language of Sec. 62 on which the f(igh Court · substan·
tially relied in Support of its Col)clusion WOUid be sujjicient to negative
the contention canvassed on behalf of the appellants and the
petitioners.

It was, how~ver, mged that Sec. 44 (3) contemplates a situation
where a State. Transport Authority has to perform the duties of
E Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, the expression
'Regional Transport Authority' in Sec. 62 would either comprehend
State Transport Authority or would not at!east exclude the power
conferred on the lower authority to be enjoyed by the higher autho-
rity. Sec. 44 (3) would not render any help in this behalf because ,_
it merely provides that .a State Transport Authority can perform the
F duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such
Authority or where, if it thiuks fit or if so required l)y a llegioual
Transport Authority, to perform those duties iu respect of any route
common to two or more regions. None of these conditions under which
a State Transport Authority can perforlll the functions and discharge
G the duties of a Regional Transport Authority are satisfied, ;nd there· ·
fore, it is difficult to accept the submission that the expression ':Regio-
nal Transport Authority' used in Sec. 62 will comprehend State Trans·
port Authority. It is equally not possible to accept the submission
that when a power is conferred on a lower authority that power can
H always be enjoyed by the authority higher in the hierarchy in reJatioi;i
to the lower authority• There is no express provision in the statute
)Vhich provides that tl\• State Transport Authority can. always an<i·
"S. KANNAN. v. K.S.R.T.A. (Desai, J.) 753

without any fetter enjoy the power of the Regional Transport Autho-
rity arid in the· absence of such provision it is difficult to read merely A
on ti\e basis of vertical hierararchy wherever the lower authority is
mentioned in the statute, the higher authority be included therein.·
Viewed from this angle, we do not prOpJlSe to undertake the exercise
of ascertaining whether State Transport Authority can be.said to be
the higher authority in relation to Regional Transport Authority.
T B
It was· urged that temporary permit can be granted pending
decision of an application for a renewal of a permit ; and that as in
the State of Karnataka out of a quota of SO permits granted by the
Central Government under Sec. 63 (7), only 36 have been issued,
the State Transport Authority can grant temporary permit for the c
vacancies till regular al.I India tourist permits are granted. Support
was sought to. be drawn for the submission from cl. ( d) of·sub-sec.
(1) of Sec. 62 which provides that temporary permit can be granted
pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. The
section does not provide for grant of temporary.· permits pending D
grant of a regular permit. On the contrary the first proviso to Sec.
62 (1) makes what is implicit in the cl. (d) explicit by. providing that
a temporary permit under Sec. 62 shall, in no case, be granted
in respect of any route or area specified in an application for' the
grant of a new permit under Section 46 or Sec. 54 during the pen-
dency of the application. It may be recalled that Sec. 46 provides E
for an application for a stage carriage permit and Sec. 54 provides
for an application for public carriers permit. Therefore, in no case
a temporary pen;nit can be granted under the section pending grant
of or renewal or a contract catriage permit. Sub-sec (2) of Sec. 62,
however,
.\ .carves out an exception where a temporary contract
. carriage F
peripit can be granted in re.spec! of ·any route or· area where no
permit ·could be issued by reason of an order of the court or, other
competent authority restraining the issue of tlie same. That is not
the cas'? here. Therefo~e, there is nu power to grant a tem'Poraty
contrl'ct 9arriage permit and ipso facto the t~mporary all India tourist
permit under Sec. 62 and the contention stands negatived ·by the G
. very language of Sec. 62 Accordingly there is no merit in the·
subniission.

A few~ daysdafter the arguments, where concluded and the matter ,lJ
stoo d over 1or JU gment, Mr. K. N. B att, learned counsel for some
of the petitioners s~bmitted .a written brief in which it was stated
that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in its application to tlie State of
.,
,754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · ' (1983) 3 s.c.R.

~arnataka was.amended by the Motor Vehicles (Mysore Amendment
A Act, 1973 (Karnataka Act No. 25 of 1975) which, after receiving the
assent of the Presiderit came into force on January 12, 1974, has
·introduced the foll~wi.ng sentence at the end of sub-sec. (2) of Sec.·
45. The sentence reads as urider:

"When such a notification is issued, reference to the
B Regional Transport Authority in Sections ,47, 48, 50, 5I,
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63 aud 68 F shall, in respect of
the application for permit for using a vehicle in two .or
more regions lying in different States, be construed as
reference also to the State Transport Authority."
c
By the same Amending Act sub-sec. (2A) has been added in Sec. 45
which. reads as under :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
( l ), the State Government may, by notification in the Offi-
cial Gazette, direct that in the case of any vehicle or vehi-
cles proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in the
State, the application under that sub-section shall be
made to the State Transport Authority. When such a
notication is issued, reference to the Regional Transport
Authority in sections 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58.
62, 63 and 68F shall in respect of applications for permit
· for using a vehicle in two or more regions lying in the
State, be construed as reference also to tbe State Trans-
port Authority."
>-
F Relying on these amendments it was nrged that as far as the State of
Karnataka is concerned on the issue of a notification under. sub-sec
(2A) of Sec 45 the expression 'Regional Transport Authority' in Sec.
62 will also comprehend State Transport Authority and therefore,
the submission of the appellants and the petitioners cannot be nega-
G .tived on the ground that only Regional Transport Authority is
· empowered to issue temporary permits. Though no notification as
required under sub-sec. (2A) of Sec. 45 vras brought to our notice
we are prepared to proceed on the assumption that such a notifica•
tion has been issued. But even if in the application of the Motor
R Vehicles Act to the State of Karnataka, Sec. 62 would also enable
State Transport Authority to issue temporary permit, it can only be
~one in. the circu!lJstances and eventualiti~s mentioned in that
§. KANNAN '· K.s.it.T.A. (IJesai, J.) 755

section. It will be presently pointed out that power to grant tem.·
porary permit under Sec. 62 in the circumstances and eventualities A
therein mentioned would not comprehend the power to grant
temporary all India tourist permit because none of the conditions
under which the same can be granted would be. attracted and State
Transport Authority of a State will have no material for satisfaction
of one or the other condition set out in Sec. 62 which would enable B
·r
it to grant such a permit. Therefore, this amendment would hardly
make any difference in the outcome of the matter.

It was urged that the High Court was ·in error in attaching
importance to the omission of Sec. 62 from array of sections subject
to which an application for an all India tourist permit has to be c
processed which according to the High Court clearly manifests the
legislative intention that there was no question of granting under any
. circumstances temporary all India tourist permit. It was contended
that omission of Sec. 62 is quite logical because if it was placed
amongst the array of sections subject to which applications for all
India tourist permit have to be processed, it . would have become D
incongruous. Proceeding along this line it was submitted that Sec.
63 (7) provides that 'such permit' as contemplated· by Sec. 63 (7) will
be granted in accordance with the various provisions set out therein,
the expression 'such permit' can only mean regular or all India
tourist permit and the temporary all India tourist permit was not to E
·be ·catered to by Sec. 63 (7) but by Sec. 62 and therefore it was
rightly omitted from the array of sections set out in sec. 63 (7J. If
one were to conclude from the mere omission of Sec. 62 from
amongst the array of sections subject to which an application for
permit under sec. 63 (7) will have . to be processed that no temporary
all India tourist permit can be granted, there would have been some F
force in the submission on behalf" of the appellants and the writ
petitioners. But we would presently point that th,e whole concept of
granting temporary all India tourist permit is foreign to the concept
of all India tourist permit !Ind that this conclusion gets reinforced by
the omission of Sec. 62 from the array of various sections subject to G
to which a ·permit under Sec. 63 (7) can be granted.

Sub·seetion (7) was introduced in Sec. 63 in 1970. The object
underlying the introduction of sub-sec. (71 becomes manifest from
the language used therein. Till the introduction of sub-sec. (7), the
H
situation was that the Regional Transport Authority can grant con··
tract carriage permit valid for the area under its jurisdiction or when
counter-signed by the State Transport Authority of the other State
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] 3 s.c.l\.

tllen the vehicle can be operated in that other State. Now with a
A view to promoting tourism, it was decided to clothe State Transport
Authority with power to issue a permit which without the necessity
of obtaining counter~signature of other Transport Authority of other
State valid for operating the veh.icle throughout the length and breadth
of the country. With a view to ·providing uninterrupted flow of
B
tourist traffic, thereby expanding tourist facilities which would pro- .,-
mote tourism in the country, a contract carriage permit with all
India operation was conceived and power was conferred on the State
Transport Authority subject to the quota prescribed by the Central
Government for eacli State to grant such permit. Every State had the
prescribed quota and we were informed that at preseht each State
c has a quota of 50 permits. Within the quota, State Transport
. Authority in each State can grant a contract ·carriage permit in
respect of a tourist vehicle for all India operation. A contract
carriage permit can as well be granted under Sec. 51 in respect of a
vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire. or reward
under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a
D whole at or for. a fixed or agreed ·rate or sum etc. Any ordinary
vehicle. meeting the requirements of law can be operated under a
contract carriage permit granted under Sec. 51. But when it conies
to granting of a contract carriage permit available for all India opera-
tion, it has to be in respect of a tourist vehicle. Tourist vehicle has
been defined to mean a contract carriage constructed or adapted attd
equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications as
the State Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify in this behalf. We were told that some special arrangements
for comfortable journey over long distances has to be provided in a
)-
tourist vehicle. What is the djstinction 7 An all India tourist permit
F is none-the-Jess a contract carri~ge permit but while contract carriage
permit can be granted for any vehicle not required to be specially
adapted for the purpose, a contract carriage permit for all India
operation as envisaged by Sec. 63 (7) can only be granted fo respect
of tourist vehicle, and it appears that it ·requires a substantial finan-
G cial investment for· adapting a vehicle as a tourist vehicle. This
intrinsic evidence shows that such huge or heavy outlay cannot,be
imposed on an applicant by giving him ·temporary alflndia tourist
permit which cannot be granted for a period extending 4 months.

H If Sec. 62 were to be a proviso to Sec. . 63 (7) ·~nd therefore, ')'·
one can conceive of granting a temporary all India tourist permit for
meeting a particular temporary need, it . is difficult to envisage a
particular temporary need of an all India variant which can be
s. KANNAN v. K.S.R.T.A. (Desai,},) 757
noticed by State Transport Authority of one State and such authority
can proceed side-tracking all relevant provisions to grant temporary A
all India tourist permit. Can there conceivably be a particular
temporary need felt throughout India at the same time ?.If the answer
is in the affirmative, all the States can grant tempotaty permits.
'Thero will be more vehicles and Jess travellers. Further a State
Transport Authority of one State may believe that there exists a B
particular temporary need but the view of the other State Transport
Authority can be e_xactly to the· contrary, and State Transport
Authority of one State can open the flood-gates of temporary permits
permitting tourist vehicles to invade other States. It may be that a
particular temporary need may arise in one State but that can be
catered to by the Regional 'transport Authority of the region or the c
__ _, State Transport Authority of the State giving direction to Regional
'transport Authority to grant contract carriage permit under Sec. 51.
It is not necessary to have recourse to Sec. 63 (7) in such a situation,
and if one St.ate cannot cater to the particular all India need, other
States having their own quota can fill in the bill.
D
Having thus examined the whole concept .Qf all India tourist
per.mi!, the question of granting of a tourist permit to cater to a
particular temporary need appears to be foreign to the very concept
of all India tourist permit. For this additional reason, we are of the
opinion that the High Court was perfectly justified in reaching the E
conclusion that there is no power to grant temporary all India tourist
permit and the High Court rightly set aside the decision of the State
Transport Appellate Authority. No case is therefore, made out for
interfering with the same. Accordingly all these appeals, special
leave petitions and writ petitions fail and each of which is dismissed
with costs where appearance has been entered into on the other side. F
All interim orders are vacated.

H.L.C. Appeals and petitions dismissed.

).