R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 3-9-1987 of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur, holding that in view of subsection (1) of S. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), permit can be issued to the corporation for a period of three years, which is liable to be renewed on payment of permit/renewal fees. The challenge of the corporation is on the ground that in view of the provisions of S. 68-F(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 10(4)(5) of the U. P. State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) framed under S. 68-I, permits of the corporation are to remain valid without renewal till the scheme remains in force. It is further argued that only such fees in respect of application for a permit can be charged from the corporation, which has been prescribed under Rule 10(5). This sub-rule prescribed a fee of Rs. 5/- and Rs. 10/- in respect of an application for permit before the RTA or the S.T.A. respectively.
(2.) Section 58 of the Act, which deals with the duration and renewal of permit, lays down that stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit other than temporary permit shall be effective for a period not less than three years and not more than five years as the transport authority may specify in the permit. The period prescribed by the aforesaid provision is same for every stage carriage permit and contract carriage permit irrespective of the person, who holds it. All these permits, unless renewed in accordance wiih S. 58, have to come to an end on the expiry of the period specified in the permit, which cannot be less than three years and more than five years. Sub-section (2) of this section requires an application for renewal of stage/contract carriage permit to be made not less than 120 days before the date of its expiry. By sub-section (2-A) special provision has been made for the State Transport Undertaking for making an application for renewal of stage/contract carriage permit not less than 15 days before the date of expiry of the permit. Corresponding provision has been made in S. 68-F(l-E) according to which application of the corporation for renewal of its permit, if made within time specified under sub-section 2-A of S. 58 is to be allowed notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV. Permits of the corporation as such have to be for the period specified under sub-section (1) of S. 58 and unless renewed in accordance with the aforesaid provision the life of such a permit comes to an end on expiry of the period for which permits were granted or renewed.
(3.) It is true that Rule 10(4) of the Rules lays down that permit issued to the corporation shall remain valid till scheme remains in force, and on the basis of this rule the learned counsel for the corporation has argued that S. 58 cannot apply to the permit of the corporation, inasmuch as the provision of S. 68-B, gives overriding effect to the provisions of Chapter 1V-A and the Rules framed thereunder. Chapter IV-A is not a self contained code and as such, other provisions of the Act will not apply unless they are expressly excluded or inconsistent with the provision of Chapter IV-A. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ashafaq v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 2161, in which the Supreme Court has laid down as follows (at pp. 2166-67) :- "Moreover, it is implicit in the enactment of Section 68-B that Chapter IV-A is not a self contained chapter to which the other provisions of the Act are inapplicable. If Chapter IV-A were a self contained code by itself, there would have been no need to give overriding effect to the provisions in that chapter as against the other provisions of the Act. Section 68F sub-section (3) also proceeds on the assumption that, but for its enactment, an order made by the Regional Transport Authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of S. 68-F would have been appelable under Section 64 and it was to exclude that applicability of Section 64 that sub-section (3) of Section 68-F was enacted. These two circumstances clearly point to the conclusion that the other provisions of the Act, to the extent to which their language warrants, apply in relation to proceeding, under Chapter IV-A, save in so far as they may be, expressly or by reason of repugnance or inconsistency, overridden. It was further held that, "A scheme of Chapter IV-A is clear and it does not exclude the applicability of the provisions contained in S. 57 and the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 58. Apart from what has been mentioned above, there is specific provision contained in S.68-F(1-E) in Chap. IV-A, according to which the corporation has to apply for renewal of permit within the period specified under sub-section (2-A) of S. 58 and on making of such an application the permits of the corporation are liable to be renewed. It is true that R. 10(4) of the Rules lays down that permit of the corporation is to remain valid till the scheme remains in force, and the rules framed under S. 68-1 will have overriding effect by virtue of S. 68-B over the provisions of Chapter IV or any other law for the time being in force; but such a rule cannot override and be inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter IV-A. As this rule is inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter IV-A mentioned before, it cannot be implemented being ultra vires.;