CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE aforesaid cases relates to the grant of permits and/or counter-signatures on inter-State routes under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called "the Act"): THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases would be dealt with separately in the later part of the judgment. All writ petitions involve the common question of law, therefore, are disposed of by a common judgment by dealing with the following legal question first:- (i). Whether it is open to the Transport Authorities to grant and/or counter-signature the stage carriage permits on an inter- state route over and above the number of permits fixed by the inter-state agreement; (ii) Whether Section 88 (4) and the proviso appended thereto create two independent and alternative grounds/modes for the grant of counter-signature of stage carriage permits on inter- statal route; and (iii) Whether after the Amendment Act No. 54/1994, which inserted the provisions of Section 68 (3) (ca) with effect from 14.11.1994, which has taken away the competence of the transport authorities, i.e., S.T.A./R.T.A. to create a route, the authority can grant permit on an inter-State route over and above the ceiling fixed by the inter-State agreement, and if the permit is not counter-signed by the other authority, whether that permit can be termed as valid in view of the provisions of Section 88(1) of the Act even for part of the route falling within the jurisdiction of the granting authority ?
(2.) THE relevant provisions of the Act read as under :- "88.-Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit gran- ted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned: ...................... A Regional Transport Authority when countersigning the permit may attach to the permit any condition which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit and may like-wise vary any condition attached to the permit by the authority by which the permit was granted. The provision of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits: provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 80 for the grant of countersignatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one State are required to be coun- tersigned by the State Transport Authority of another State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the States after complying with the requirements or Sub-section (5). Every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area, shall be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted, and the date not being less than thirty days from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, on which, and the authority by which, and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representation received in connection therewith will be considered. Every agreement arrived at between the States shall, in so far as it relates to the grant of counter-signature of permits, be published by each of the State Government concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in the regional language circulating in the area or route covered by the agreement and the State Transport Authority of the State and Regional Transport Authority concerned shall give effect to it." (3). The aforesaid provisions have been interpreted by various High Courts from time to time expressing the conflicting views. (4). However, in Mohammed Ibrahim vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (1). The Apex Court has considered the provisions corresponding to the above referred to in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called "the Old Act") and observed as under:- The combined effect of Section 63, 63-A, 63-B and 63-C is that the inter-State commission will deal with the inter-State permit. The Central Government under Section 63-C of the Act is authorised to make rules in regard to the procedure to be followed in considering an application for grant and counter-signature of permits. In the absence of specific rules, the best way of harmonising the powers and functions is to allow these inter-State authorities to exercise their respective spheres in regard to grant and counter-signature of permits by agreement and accord." (5). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, further in para 14 of the judgment, has laid down as follows:- "We are, therefore, of opinion that Section 47 (3) of the Act will not apply either to grant or to counter-signatures of permits both in the case of inter-State and inter-regional permits. The relevant authorities in two States or two regions will ensure agreement and act in concert as the case may be. The number of services in the region can of course be fixed by the Regional Transport Authority but they will be for the region only. The number of services for inter-regional or inter-State routes beyond the frontier of the region will have to be de- termined by agreement." (6). The Allahabad High Court, in Writ Petition No. 294/1965, Chetan Lal vs. S.T.A.T. and others, decided on 3.5.65, held that on an inter-State route, the Transport Authorities have no competence to grant permit or counter-sign it over and above the ceiling fixed by agreement between the two States. The Court held as under:- "It is urged for the contesting respondents that it is not necessary for the two State Transport Authorities to concur when the strength of a route is raised. This may be true, if the route lies entirely within the territories of one State. Section 47 (3) empowers a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriages for which stage carriages permit may be granted and does not require it to obtain the concurrence of any other authority. But the language of the sub- section will clearly show that this provision is confined to the regions or specified area or specified route within the region, over which the Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction. It does not entitle the Regional Transport Authority to raise the limit or strength unilaterally on the route if the route passes from one Region to another. Similarly, it is difficult to hold that where a route passes from one State to another, the S.T.A. of one State alone is entitled by unilateral act to raise the strength on the route."
(3.) THE aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.5.65 was approved and confirmed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 447/1965, decided on 15.9.69. In Dalip Singh vs. S.T.A.T., Lucknow (2), a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that if the permits are granted on the inter-State route over and above the agreement fixed by the reciprocal agreement, by a Transport Authority under the State as "its operation would be extra-territorial and would suffer by the vice of extra-territoriality." The Court further observed that even by passing legisla- tion to that effect would not be valid. The Court held as under:- "In our opinion, it is not within the competence of any State Legislature to take away by force of a legislation enacted by it, power of other State to enter into an agreement and to fix the number of stage carriage permits which it would permit on the portion of the inter-Sta- tal route lying within that State as such a legislation would have extra-territorial operation." Similar question arose before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 906/1977, Nasiruddin vs. S.T.A.T. and others (3); and Writ Petition No. 163/1973, Smt. Sharda Devi vs. S.T.A.T. and others (4). Both writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment dated 31.1.1979 holding as under:- "(i) that the question of number of permits to be granted and countersigne is governed by the inter-State Agreement. (ii) that as the grant of counter-signature of the permits on the route is covered by the inter-State agreements, the permits are to be gran- ted and counter-signed only in accordance with the agreement and it is not permissible to grant or countersign permits above the limits fixed by the inter-State agreement; (iii) that as regard the interpretation of Section 63(3) and the proviso appended thereto, the learned single Judge held as follows:- "It could not be the intention of the Legislature that beyond the determined strength of the route the procedure laid down in Section 57 will apply. The scheme of the Act limits the number of stage carriage. The number of services in the region or any specified area or any specified route within the region is fixed by the R.T.A. The num- ber of services for inter-regional or inter-State route is to be determined by agreement. If there is an agreement between the two participating States, then beyond the limit fixed there could be no question of operating any services. The effect of following the procedure laid down in Section 57 beyond the limit fixed would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages on the inter-State route on which the two States have previously agreed to limit the services. It could not be the intention of the Legislatures to nullify the inter-State agreements. The true combined meaning of Section 63(3) and its proviso is that the inter-State agreement envisaged by the pro- viso would make it unnecessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 57 for the grant of counter-signature of permits on the inter-State routes within the limit fixed, but once there is an agreement, inter alia, limiting the number of services on inter-State route, the main clause of Section 63 (3) ceases to operate." ;