STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusREGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS. ETC.

         U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION                                 A
                                       v.
     REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS. ETC.

                          SEPTEMBER 1, 1998

              [DR. AS. ANAND AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]                             B

     Motor Vehicles Act, 1939/U.P. State Road Transport Services
(Developmelll) Rules, 1974:

      Ss. 58(2)(a), 68-F(1)(E)!R. 10(4)-Notified routeJ~Application by
U.P. State Road Tramp011 C01poration for Stage Caniage pennit-Renewal
                                                                               c
of-Held, pemzit remains valid till the scheme remains in force-17zere is 110
need for renewal of the existing pe1111it dwing the peliod when the scheme
remains inforce.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4637 of                   D
1998 Etc.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.91 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 10064 of 1988.

      Pramod Swamp for the Appellant.                                          E
     R.C. Verma, R.B. Misra, Kamlendra Misra, Sunil K. Jain and Vijay
Hansaria for the Respondents.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                               F
CA.No.4637 of 1998 (@ SLP(C) No. 13937/92)

      Leave granted.

      The short question requiring our consideration is : whether the U .P.
State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter the 'Corporation') is re-        G
quired to renew the permits obtained by it to ply its vehicles on a notified
route during the subsistence. of a scheme ? The High Court has answered
the question in the affirmative.

     In short, the facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Gorakhpur             H
                                   '
                                       301
    302                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A requested the Regional Transport Authorities for issuance of permits for
  routes covered by a scheme reserved for exclusive operation by the Cor-
  poration. In response to the Regional Manager's letter, he was informed
  that according to the provisions of Section 58(2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles
  Act, 1939 (hereinafter the 'Act') permits could be issued for a maximum
B period of three years and were thereafter required to be renewed. The
  appellants were informed that on payment of permit fee as well as the
  prescribed fee under Rule 55 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940
  (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') the permit issued to the Corporation
  should be got renewed. The appellants questioned the directions issued by
  the authorities by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court
C vide its judgment dated 25.1.1991 allowed the writ petition partially. It was
  held that the Corporation was required to apply for renewal of the permit
  under section 68-F(l)(E) of the Act for the period prescribed under
  sub-section 58(2)(a) if the Act read with the relevant rules and on making
  such an application, permit issued to the Corporation would be renewed.
D The High Court did notice that Rule 10(4) of the Rules lays down that a
  permit issued to the Corporation is to remain valid till the scheme remains
  in force, but came to the conclusion that such a Rule could not override
  or be inconsistent with the provisions of section 58(2)(a) of the Act and,
   therefore, held that notwithstanding Rule 10(4) of the Rules, renewal of
  the permit was essential to make it valid for the renewed period to ply the
E vehicles by the Corporation. This appeal by special leave calls in question
   that judgment and order of the High Court.

          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the
    record.

F        Chapter IV of the Act deals with control of transport vehicles
  including the provisions for issuance of permits and the manner of renewal
  of tbe same. This Chapter, however, is general in nature and deals with
  11011-1;otified routes. Chapter IV-A of the Act on the other hand exclusively
  contains special provisions relating to the State Transport Undertakings
G and concerns itself with notified routes. This chapter was inserted hy Act
  100 of 1956 w.e.f. 16.2.1967.

          Section 68-B of the Act which occurs in Chapter IV-A reads.:            -
             "68-B Chapter IV-A to override Chapter IV and other laws - The
H            provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders made there-
             U.P. S.R.T.C. v. REGIONAL TPT. AUTHORITY                   303

        under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent          A
        therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or any other law for
        the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue
        of any such law."

A bare reading of section 68-B (supra), thus, shows that Chapter III A of
the Act has an overriding effect notwithstanding anything contained in any     B
other law for the time being in force including Chapter IV of the Act to
the extent of anything being inconsistent with what is contained in Chapter
IV A

      Section 68-F (1-E) (Chapter IV-A) relates to issuance of permits to      C
the State Transport Undertakings. It reads :

        "68-F Issue of permits to State Transport undertakings ( 1) Where,
        in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State transport under-
        taking applies (in such manner as may be prescribed by the State
        Government in this behalf) for a stage carriage permit or a public     D
        carrier's permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a
        notified area or notified route, the [State Transport Authority in
        any case where the said area or route lies in more than one region
        and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case] shall issue
        such permit to the State transport undertaking, notwithstanding        E
        anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV.

            (1-E) Where a State transport undertaking applies for renewal
        of a permit within the period specified in sub section (2A) of
        Section 58, the State Transport Authority or, as the case may be
        the Regional Transport Authority, shall, renew such permit, not-       F
        withstanding anything to the contraw contained in Chapter IV".

       Section 68(1) confers Rule making powers on the State Government.
Sub-clause (cc) of clause (2) thereof enables the State Government to
frame Rules regarding the manner in which applications under sub-section       G
(1) of Section 68 Fare to be made. The U.P. State Road Transport Services
(Development) Rules, 1974 have been framed under the aforesaid Rule
making power. Rule 10 thereof deals with the subject. It provides :

     "Rule 10. Application for pennit for services of stage carnage (Section
~1~~                                                                           H
    304                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A         1. An application for stage carriage permit and public carrier's
    permit of contract carriage permit in respect of the notified routes/areas
    in pursuance of the approved scheme shall be made on behalf of the State
    Transport Undertaking in Form III.

          2. Upon receipt of an application under sub-rule (1) the State
B Transport Authority as the case may be issued a permit to the State
    Transport Undertaking for the notified route or notified area accordingly.

         3. Every permit issued as aforesaid shall in 2 parts namely, Para 'A'
    and Part 'B' and be in Form 'IV'.

C          4. The pcnnit issued as aforesaid shall re111ain valid till the scheme
    re111ains inforce.

        5. There shall be paid a fee of Rs. 5 only in respect of an application
  for a permit made before the Regional Transport Authority and a fee of
D Rs. 10 only in respect of such application made before the State Transport
  Authority.

          6. Duplicate permit to any part of the permit shall be issued by
    the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority con-
    cerned as the case may be, on a payment of Rs. 5 for Part 'A' and Rs.
E   2 for Part 'B' in case the same gets mutilated or lost."

          A combined reading of Section 68-B, 68-F (I-E) and Rule 10 (supra)
    shows <hat insofar as notified routes arc concerned, for which the Corpora-
    tion has an exclusive right to ply their vehicles under the scheme framed
    under the Act, the duration of the permit obtained by the Corporation for
F   plying those vehicles is co-terminus with the life of the scheme. Sub-clause
    (4) of Rule 10 unmistakably says "the permit issued as aforesaid shall
    remain valid. till the scheme remains in force".

         The Division Bench of the High Court, it appears overlooked the
  distinction between the provisions of Chapters IV and IVA of the Act. So
G far as Chapter IV is concerned, as already noticed, it deals with essentially
  speaking, non-notified routes. Section 58(2)(a) of the Acl which occurs in
  Chapter IV applies only to non-notified routes and not to the notified routes,
  even when the Corporation may also be plying their vehicles on the non-
  notified routes. However, so far as notified routes are concerned, Chapter
H IVA of the Act which contains special provisions governs the field and
               U .P. S.R.T.C. v. REGIONAL TPT. AUTHORITY                     305

 being "social" it over rid..:s the "general provisions" of Chapter IV. Thus the A
 grant of permit to the Corporation for plying its vehicle on notified routes
 remains valid till the scheme remains in force. There is thus no need for .
 renewal of the existing permit during the period when the scheme is in
 force. The Corporation does not need to make any fresh application for
 renewal of the permit after 3 years or 5 years so long as the scheme is in
 force. The necessity to seek renewal of a permit after the expiry of the
                                                                                 B
 period prescribed in the permit is only relevant where the permit is granted
 even to the Corporation under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act and
 not under Chapter IV A of the Act. The view of the authorities to the
 contra, J which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court
 is thus clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained.                                 c
       Thus, for what has been said above, the impugned judgment and
 order dated 25.1.1991 made in Writ Petition No.1006/1988 is hereby set
 aside. The effect of this order would be that the writ petition would stand
 allowed and the permit obtained by the Corporation to ply the vehicles on D
 the notified routes will continue to remain valid till the scheme is in force
 and would not require any renewal during_ the subsistence of the scheme.
 No costs.

 CA. No. ....... of 1998 (@ SLP(C) No. 12732 of 1992)
                                                                                    E
         In this appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 12732/95, which calls in
 question the judgment and order of the High Court dated 12.8.1992 made
 in Writ Petition No. 10837 of 1992, the Division Bench of the High Court
 followed its earlier judgment in U.P. State Road Tra11Spolt Corporation v.
 171e Regional Tra11Sport Audtority, Gorakhpur. For the reasons stated by us
                                                                                    F
 in the appeal filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (C.A.
 No ......... of 1998(@ SLP(C) No. 13937of1992), this appeal also succeeds
 and is allowed on the same terms as that appeal.

        Leave granted. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are
· of the opinion that the interpretation placed by the learned Division Bench       G
  of the High Court on Section 104 of the Motor, Vehicles Act, 1988 is
  unexceptionable and calls for no interference. We, however, find that the
  view taken by the High Court to the effect that since the Corporation did
  not get the permits renewed, which were granted to it in 1987 with regard
  to the nationalised routes it could not ply its vehicles on the notified routes   H
   3()6                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A without a renewal permit for the reasons given by us in U.P. State Road
    Transp01t Corporation v. Regional Transp01t Authority and Others, (C.A. No.
    4637 of (1998) @SLP (C) No. 13937/1992) is erroneous and cannot be
  · sustained. The reasons given by us in that judgment would apply insofar as
    this aspect is concerned to this appeal also. With these observations the
B appeal is disposed of. No costs.
    R.P.                                          Appeal allowed/disposed of.




                            .