- (1.) THE petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that it may be declared that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal STAT No. 151/92 Babulal Jain vs. R. T. A. , Ajmer and others under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles No. 3 had no right to prefer the said appeal against the order of the R. T. A. Ajmer dated 11. 3. 1992. Lastly, it is prayed that the order dated 29. 9. 1992 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur in the aforesaid appeal the quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE petitioners are the holders of stage carriage permits on Gachipura of Khari existing route. THE petitioner No. 2 was sanctioned the said permit by the R. T. A. , Ajmer on 15. 10. 1990 and the petitioner No. 1 was sanctioned two such permits one on 15. 10. 1990 and another on 14. 8. 1991 subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1988') including the condition that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area or on a specified route. After grant of the said permits it was felt that the portion from Khari to Roza a distance of 5 kms. be included in the said route in order to provide direct services from Gachipura to Roza. Accordingly, on an application moved by the petitioners the R. T. A. , Ajmer granted the inclusion of Khari to Roza route in the said route Gachipura to Khari route. Thus, the route came to be known as Gachipura to Roza via Khari route. A proposal was moved before the R. T. A. , Ajmer for grant/inclusion of Roza to Nimbi route in the said Gachipura to Roza via Khari. On receipt of the said proposal, the authority obtained a survey report wherein it was recommenced that there was no direct services for the villages Gorau, Bharnawa, Jhardia, Nimbi and the proposed inclusion is being for 22 kms. be allowed. THE R. T. A. , Ajmer vide its order dated 11. 3. 1992 allowed the said inclusion of Roza to Nimbi route in the said Gachipura to Roza via Khari route and thus, the petitioners are providing regular passengers transport services on the said route. A copy of the order dated 11. 3. 1992 has been placed on the record as Annex 4. THE respondent No. 3 submitted an appeal under Section 89 of the Act of 1988 against the said order of the R. T. A. , Ajmer. THE State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (referred to hereinafter as 'the Tribunal') by its order dated 29. 9. 1992 has allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the R. T. A. dated 11. 3. 1992. A copy of the order of the Tribunal has been placed on the record as Annex6. THErefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. N. Munshi, both have contended that under sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act of 1988, any number of extension, variation can be granted subject to a maximum of 24 kms. at a time. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel also counsel also joined the issue and submitted that he has also filed a writ petition before this Court, therefore, he may also be heard. Therefore, Mr. Vyas was also heard. Mr. Vyas submitted that under sub-section (3) of Section 80 the total variation or extension can only be granted to the extent of 25 kms. may being piece meal orders but not beyond the maximum limit of 24 kms. from the termini. Therefore, the question before me is the interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act of 1988 , that whether any number of extension variation to a permit can be granted to the extent of 24 kms. any number of times or any number of variation can be granted by several orders on the route to the maximum extent of 24 kms. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this writ petition, it would be better to first reproduce sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act of 1988, which reads as under: - " (3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes of a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in 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 stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route in increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vacancies: 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 twenty four kilometres; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres 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 shall 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 varied or extended or any part thereof. " Section 80 deals with the grant of permits and it says that the permits shall not ordinarily be refused. Sub-section (3) of Section 80 says that an application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above of specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. If the section is read without referring to the proviso then it simply says that an application for inclusion of a new routes or a new area or altering the route or routes or a area covered by the permit by increasing the number of trips, all these contingencies, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. Therefore, in the case of extension if the holder moves an application for inclusion or exclusion or extension or variation or curtailment of the route or routes then in such contingency it shall be treated to be an application for grant of a new permit. But the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act of 1988 says that it shall not necessarily be treated as 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. It means that if a single operator is operating on that route and he requests for increasing the frequency of service and makes an application to that effect then the increasing the frequency to that applicant on an application made by him that application will not be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. But in the another contingency i. e. if a variation or extension is sought then it is covered by the second proviso. In the second proviso clause (i) deals with variation and clause (ii) deals with extension. Clause (i) says that in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty four kilometres. The simple grammatical interpretation of clause (i) of the second proviso is that in case of a stage carriage permit holders moves an application for variation of his permit then the first thing is that the termini shall not be altered and the distance, which can be varied shall not exceed 24 kms. That means that to the extent of 24 kms. from the termini can be varied. The ceiling is 24 kms. No variation will be permitted beyond 24 kms. The idea is that the stage carriage permit holder can be given a variation in his route upto the maximum extent of 24 kms. It dose not mean that 24 kms. variation can be given at any number of times. If such construction is put on this clause then that would amount to frustrating the purpose of the provision. The very fact that one point in fixed i. e. termini and from that a deviation can be given only to the extent of 24 kms. therefore, the ceiling of 24 kms. cannot be lost sight of. The maximum deviation which can be given is of 24 kms. and not beyond that. It is different that the deviation can be given in a piece mean like that 10 kms. at one time and 10 kms. at another time and 4 kms. at other time. That means that the variation can be given at a number of times but the maximum limit is 24 kms. It is not the intention of the legislature to mean that 24 kms. of variation can be given at any number of times. The mere fact that the legislature has chosen the word that variation, shall not exceed 24 kms. from the termini, that means that from either of the termini the stage carriage permit holder can get variation/extension to the maximum limit of 24 kms. and not beyond that. If the interpretation which is sought to be put by Mr. Maheshwari and Mr. Munshi is given then it would result in absurdity because the route will be totally varied and the distance can exceed more than 24 kms. to any distance from the termini and that will amount to reopening of the route for which the stage carriage permit-holder does not hold any permit. This would go against the main sub-section (3) of Section 80 because in sub-section (3) it has been clearly mentioned that if an application to vary the conditions of any permit other than a temporary permit by inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. Therefore, the proviso which is added here for making a variation means that in case of variation to the extent of 24 kms. will not amount to grant of a new permit. Therefore, if sub-section (3) is read with the second proviso it would mean that in the normal course if any condition of the permit is varied like inclusion or exclusion of some area and increasing the number of trips and application for curtailment of the route then such variation/extension upto extent of 24 kms. that will not be treated to be a new permit. Thus, a reading of sub-section (3) with clauses (i) and (ii) of second proviso would show that the variation and extension upto the limit of 24 kms from the termini is permissible and that would not amount to grant of a new permit. This proviso is an exception to sub-section (3) and this will only be applicable whom extension or variation is to the extent of 24 kms. Therefore, the submission of both the learned counsel does not appear to be correct. Although variation and extension are further circumscribed that after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. Therefore, the language of sub-section (3) read with the proviso makes it clear that what the Legislature intended was that if the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the public convenience and it is not expedient to grant separate permit then it can vary or extend the upto the maximum extend of 24 kms. Therefore, it is clear that the Legislature has only permitted an extension or variation to the maximum extent of 24 kms. and it does not mean that the extension/variation can be granted upto 24 kms. at a time or at any number of times. This does not appear to be the intention of the Legislature and, therefore, I am of the opinion that a reading of sub-section (3) with the second proviso only means that the extension and variation can only be granted to the maximum ceiling of 24 kms. may be in piece meal but in any case not beyond 24 kms. to the maximum extent.
(3.) MY attention was also drawn to the old provisions of sub- section (8) of Section 57 and Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as Section 72 of the Act of 1988. MY attention was also invited to the provisions of Section 87 of the Act of 1988 regarding grant of temporary permits. It was submitted that under Section 87 of the Act of 1988 which is equivalent of Sec. 62 of the Act of 1939 for grant of temporary permits, this Court has taken the view that a permit of 4 months duration can be granted at any number of times. With great respect, this contention is not correct as the language of Section 62 of the Act of 1939 and Section 87 of the Act of 1988 is different and at the same time both has different context also. The question of granting a temporary permit depends on the temporary need not grant of a temporary permit may warrant looking to the temporary need. But that analogy cannot be applied here because the ceiling has been fixed by the Parliament itself that the extension/variation which is being granted by the authorities looking to the convenience of the public should not be in any case exceed more than 24 kms. and, therefore, the extension or variation can only be granted to the maximum ceiling of 24 kms. from the termini. Thus, the parameters here and the parameters for grant of a temporary permit are different an the analogy for the grant of temporary permit is not of any avail of in the present case. A reference to Section 15 of the General Clauses Act has also been made but that is meaningless in the present context. My attention was also invited to the decision given in the case of R. Raghuram vs. P. Jayarama Naidu and others (1) by Mr Munshi to show that the variation in the permit amounts to grant of a new permit. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel has invited my attention to Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore vs. Karnataka Authority, Bangalore and others But with great respect of both the learned counsel in the controversy involved here both the cases does not render any assistance. In both the cases the question was regarding of permit under Chapter IV-A of the Act of 1939. ;