- (1.) THE controversy arises in these appeals is whether the Regional transport Authority can grant variation or extention beyond 24 Kms. R-1 in these appeals had questioned the authority of R-2 in granting extension and variation beyond 24 Kms. Learned Single Judge By interpreting the proviso (ii) to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has held that R-2 authority has no power to grant variation or extension beyond 24 Kms. from the termini. Though the appellants are the transporters, their permits were not called in question before the learned Single Judge. Appellants being the operators of stage carriage permits in different areas, being aggrieved by the interpretation of the learned Single Judge to proviso (ii) to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act are before us challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants Sri M. R. V. Achar has raised the following points: according to him, learned Single Judge has committed an. error in holding that the authority R-2 had no power to grant variation or extension beyond 24 kms. According to him, when a condition stipulated to the proviso of condition No. 21 to sub-section (2) of section 72 is not attached to the permit of any stage carriage, there cannot be any prohibition to grant variation beyond 24 kms. from the termini. He also contends that when once the variation has been granted, the word 'termini' is also extended and the extended termini has to be treafed as a point of termini to enable any stage carriage permit holder to file a variation application for the next time and that such application filed for variation has to be considered for further extension of 24 kms. from the point of the said termini. To substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgment of the supreme Court reported in SRI RAM VILAS SERVICE LIMITED kumbakonam vs M/s. RAMAN AND RAMAN PRIVATE LIMITED and ANOTHER. He has relied upon the judgment-of the Supreme court reported in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA vs M/s. SHAZADA NAND AND SONS AND OTHERS to show how a statute has to be interpreted by the Court of Law. According to him, learned Single Judge while interpreting a provision has made an improvement to the existing Law and that the Law declared by the learned Single Judge amounts to an amendment to the exiting statute and therefore he contends that the order of the learned Single judge requires to be set aside. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents supporting the judgment of the learned Single Judge has relied upon Section 57 (8) of the old Motor Vehicles Act and also proviso (2) to Section 48 (3) of the old Motor Vehicles Act and clause (xxi) of sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the new Motor vehicles Act. Relying upon these provisions, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeals.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, what is required to be considered by us is that whether the R. T. A. can grant variation of permits either on receipt of one or more applications beyond 24 Kms. in view of proviso (2) to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the New Motor Vehicles Act. Under the Old Motor Vehicles act, a permit holder of a stage carriage was entitled to make an application under sub-section (8) of Section 57 and the same reads as hereunder: "an application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or, in the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the [number of trips above the specified maximum, or by altering the route covered by it], or in the case of a contract carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit; provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of a stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route or in any area to increase the frequency of the service so provided, without any increase in the number of vehicles. " As per this provision, there was no prohibition for an authority, to entertain an application for variation or extension of a permanent permit on any route or in any area to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles. So, it is clear from this provision of law that there was no prohibition for the authority to extend the permit or grant variation without there being any limitation to the distance. Under the old Act, as per subsection (3) of Section 48, RTA was required to grant permission attaching certain conditions enumerated therein. Clause (xxi) of subsection (3) of Section 48 of the old Act reads as hereunder: "that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month, - (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions; [provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of Clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilo meters, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the public convenience and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part there of;]" Proviso to the said clause clearly says that if such conditions were to be attached to the permit, variation or extension shall not be more than 24 kms. While introducing the new Act, Section 57 (8) of the old Act which is corresponding to sub-section (3) of Section 80, a proviso is introduced. As per this proviso, variation or extension shall not be more than 24 kms. Such a proviso was not there under section 57 (8) of the old Act. Proviso to Section 80 (3) of the new Act reads as hereunder: "provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles: provided further that, - (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twentyfour kilometers; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so vari'ed or extended or any part thereof. " Learned Counsel for the appellants has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1968 SC 748 cited supra. Relying upon this judgment, he strongly contends that if proviso to condition No. (xxi) is not attached to the permit, there cannot be any prohibition to grant variation or extension beyond 24 kms. He has relied upon para 6 of the said judgment, which reads as hereunder: "the learned Counsel for the respondent contends that section 48 (3) (xxi), as amended, operates whether a condition to that effect has been put in a permit or not. But we are unable to read Section 48 in this sense. Section 48 (3) clearly enables the regional Transport Authority to attach to the permit any or one of the twenty one conditions. It may in a particular case put one or two or more of the conditions or it may put all the conditions. It seems to be common ground that if any of the first twenty conditions in Section 48 (3) is not attached to a permit it will not have effect. What makes condition (xxi) as amended is not attached to a permit it is difficult to see how the Regional transport Authority can derive any power from the existence of a Section 48 (3) (xxi) in the Act. Section 5 (1) of Act III of 1964 makes the route or routes or the area specified in every stage carnage permit granted before the commencement of the amending Act a condition attached to such permit under subsection (3) of Section 48 of the principal Act; it does not say that section 48 (3) (xxi) shall be deemed to be a condition attached to every such permit. The learned Counsel for the respondent says that this was the intention of the amendment, but if this was so, the intention has not been carried out. " But the question is whether such a condition is incorporated in the permit granted to any of the stage carriage permit holders and in the absence of such conditions in view of the new Act of 1988 whether the authorities can grant variation or extension beyond 24 kms. It is not in dispute that under the new Act, there is a prohibition for the authorities to grant variation or extension beyond 24 kms. But such a prohibition was not there under the old Act. No doubt, as per Clause (xxi) of Section 48 (3) of the old Act, such a condition was there in the old Act. Section 48 (3) enumerates what are the conditions to be attached to a permit. But under the old Act there was also a proviso limiting the extension or variation up to 24 kms. , but according to the Supreme Court if such a clause was not attached to the permit, then there was no prohibition for an authority to grant variation beyond 24 kms. But such provision was not there under section 57 (8) of the old Act. Under the new Act, such a prohibition is there, both under Section 72 (2) and so also under Section 80 (3 ). Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the old Act and the new Act. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants is delivered by the Supreme Court while dealing a matter under the old Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellants is of no assistance to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the fact that under the new Act the maximum limit of variation or extension is limited to 24 kms. , we are of the opinion that the variation or extension can be granted by the authority up to 24 kms. only.;