http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: D. PAPIAH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/12/1975

BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1976 AIR 1731            1976 SCR  (3)  28  1976 SCC  (1) 953

ACT:      Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939-Section 45(1)-Jurisdiction to grant inter  regional permits,  when the  proposed route  or area falls  in two  or more  regions Lying  within the  same State vests  either with the Regional Transport Authority of the region  in which the major portion of the proposed route or area  lies, or  with the  Regional Transport Authority of the region  in which it is proposed to t keep the vehicle or vehicles, in  case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal-Meaning of the term  "area"  in  the  first  proviso  to  s.  45(1)-Whether "motorable tract in the region" or geo graphical area".

HEADNOTE:      Section 45(1)  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939,  a general provision regulating applications for inter-regional route-permits within  a State  requires an application to be made  to   the  appropriate   Regional  Transport  Authority mentioned in  the proviso  thereto  namely,  either  to  the Regional Transport  Authority of  tho region  in  which  the major portion  of the  proposed route or area lies or to the Regional Transport  Authority of  the region  in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles in case the portion of the  proposed route  or area  in each  of the regions are approximately equal.      The appellant  applied for  a contract  carriage permit that would be valid throughout the State of Karnataka, which meant that  he proposed  to  use  his  vehicle  in  all  the nineteen  regions,  to  the  Regional  Transport  Authority, Mandya, who  granted him  on 8-2-1972  a  contract  carriage permit valid  for the  entire State of Karnataka. The permit was granted  as Mandya  region has more motorable roads than any other  district in the State. On appeal preferred by the State Road  Transport  Corporation,  taking  the  view  that geographically Mandya  region was  smaller in  area and,  as such, the  jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya was  ousted, the  permit granted to the appellant was cancelled by  the State  Transport Appellate Tribunal by its Order dated  19-8-1972,  resulting  in  a  writ  Proceedings before the Karnataka High Court which was dismissed.      On appeal by Special Leave, the Court,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

^      HELD: (1)  The word  "route" which  has  been  used  in association with  "area specifically  notified by  the State Government". However,  the terms and "a line of travel which specifies the  highway which  may be  traversed by  a  motor vehicle between  one terminus  and  another".  Section  2(1) defines "area"  as "area  specifically notified by the State Government". However,  the terms  and expressions defined in s. 2  will apply  only if  there is nothing repugnant in the subject or  context. Tho first proviso to s. 45(1) speaks of the route  or area  proposed in  an application for a permit and, as  such,  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  State Government specifying  the area. The definition of "area" in section 2(1)  has therefore  no relevance  in this  context. [31B-D]      (2) S.  45 uses  both  the  words  "route"  and  "area" whichever is  applicable in a given case. A route as defined is a  line of  travel between  two termini on a highway, but the idea  of a  route as a notional line that the definition suggests has  not been  consistently maintained  in the Act. [31D-E]      (3) A  route may  mean not  only the  notional line  of travel between  one terminus  and another, but also the area of the  route over which the motor vehicles ply, yet the two terms are not interchangeable. "A route is an area plus some thing more." This "something" is the notional line of travel between the  two termini which distinguishes a route from an area simpliciter.  The first  proviso to  s. 45(1) speaks of "route or area" apparently making a distinction between 29 them to  cover applications  relatable to either. A contract carriage does  not   ply along a fixed "route or routes" but over an  "area" which  is why  an application for a contract carriage permit  has to  contain a  statement as  to the pro posed area. [31G-H]      Dosa Satyanarayanamurty  etc.  v.  The  Andhra  Pradesh State Road  Transport Corpn.,  [1961] 1 S.C.R. 642 (644). C. P.  C.  Motor  Service,  Mysore  v.  The  State  of  Mysore, [1962]Supp. (1)  S.C.R. 717  (725). C. P. Sikh Regular Motor Service etc.  v. The State of Maharashtra, [1975] (2) S.C.R. 10, followed.      (4)The word  "area" in the first proviso to s. 45(1) of the Act  means  the  area  of  motorable  roads  within  the territorial jurisdiction  of a regional transport authority. Except that  the territorial  jurisdiction of  the  regional transport authority  is fixed in terms of "geographical area -"district-wise in  the State  of Karnataka-  "area" in that wider sense is irrelevant to the purpose of the Act.                                                    [32 B, F]      (5) The  jurisdiction of a regional transport authority to grant  an inter  regional permit  depends on the existing areas of motorable roads when an application for a permit is made. [32 G]      [On the  question of  the reasonableness of a provision which requires  an application  for an inter-regional permit to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region where the  major portion of the proposed route or area lies, the Court  observed that  this was  a matter  of policy  but added that  the policy has not been stated very clearly, and that instead  of leaving the law in such a "slippery state," the State  should clarify  it by  appropriate legislation so that the  law may  be clear  and easily ascertainable by the concerned section of the public.]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1153 of 1975.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  29th November  1974 of  the Mysore  High Court at Bangalore Writ Petition No. 117 of 1973.      S. V. Gupte, K. R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.      Shyamla Pappu (Mrs.) for Respondent No. 3.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      Gupta, J.-on  the  application  of  the  appellant  the Regional  Transport   Authority,  Mandya,   granted  him.  a contract carriage  permit on February 8, 1972, valid for the entire State  of Karnataka.  The grant  was cancelled by the Karnataka State  Transport Appellate  Tribunal by  its order dated August  19, 1972  on appeal  preferred  by  the  third respondent, Karnataka  State Road Transport Corporation. The appellant filed  a  writ  petition  in  the  High  Court  of Karnataka  at  Ban  galore  challenging  the  order  of  the Appellate Tribunal.  The High  Court  dismissed the petition by its  order dated  November 29,  1-974 agreeing  with  the Appellate Tribunal  that the  Regional Transport  Authority, Mandya,  had   no  jurisdiction   to  grant   permits  valid throughout the  State of  Karnataka in  view  of  the  first proviso to  sub-section (1)  of  section  45  of  the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The correctness of  that decision is questioned by the appellant in this appeal by special leave.      Section 45(1)  with its first proviso which is the only part of  the section  relevant for the present purpose is in these terms: General provision as to applications for permits. 30           "45 (1)  Every application  for a  permit shall be      made to  the Regional Transport Authority of the region      in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles:           Provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle      or vehicles  in two  or more  regions lying  within the      same State,  the  application  shall  be  made  to  the      Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the      major portion  of the  proposed route or area lies, and      in case  the portion  of the  proposed route or area in      each of  the regions  is approximately  equal,  to  the      Regional Transport  Authority of the region in which it      is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles :" As its  marginal note  indicates, section contains a general provision regulating  applications for permits. The proviso, quoted above,  lays down  that where  the  applicant  for  a permit proposes to use his vehicle in two or more regions in the same  State, the  application  must  be  made    to  the Regional Transport  Authority within  whose jurisdiction the major portion  of the  proposed  route  or  area  lies.  The appellant had  asked for  a contract  carriage  permit  that would be valid throughout the State of Karnataka which meant that he  proposed to  use his  vehicle in  all the different regions lying  in the  State. The  second proviso to section 44(1) of  the Act  lays down  that the area specified as the region of  a Regional  Transport Authority shall not be less than an  entire district,  or the whole area of a Presidency town. In  the State  of  Karnataka  there  are  19  Regional Transport Authorities,  one for  each district in the State. In terms  of  the  first  proviso  to  section  45  (1),  an application for  an inter-regional permit that the appellant was asking  for had  to be  made to  the Regional  Transport Authority of  the region  that included the major portion of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

the proposed area. The question debated before the appellate tribunal and  the High  Court was  whether  the  area  lying within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, was  larger than  the area  within the region of any other Regional Transport Authority in the State, and in that context the  meaning of the term ’area’ in the first proviso to section  45 (1) arose for consideration. According to the applicant for  the permit,  ’area’ in  section 45  meant the extent of  motorable tract  in the  region, and the Regional Transport   Authority,    Mandya,   agreeing    with    this interpretation of  the word  ’area’ found  that the  ’Mandya Region has  more motorable  roads than any other district in the State".  The appellate  tribunal and the High Court both refused to  accept this meaning of ’area’ which they held to mean plain  geographical area  and as the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya,  was admittedly  not the largest district in that  State, the  High Court  dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the decision of the appellate tribunal that the grant of permit was without jurisdiction.      Before proceeding  to consider  the merits of the rival contentions as  to the  meaning of  the word  ’area’ in  the first proviso to section 45(1), it would be helpful to refer to certain  other provisions  of the  Act which  seem to  be relevant in  this context.  The appellant  had asked  for  a contract carriage  permit. Section  2(3) defies  a  contract carriage as  a motor  vehicle which  carries passengers  for hire or  reward under a contract for the use of the vehicles as a whole either on a time basis or 31 from one  point  to  another,  and  in  both  cases  without stopping to   pick  up or  set down  along the line of route passengers not  included in the contract. A motor vehicle is defined in section 2(18) as a mechanically propelled vehicle ’adapted for  use upon  roads’. Section  49  lays  down  the particulars that  an application  for  a  contract  carriage permit shall contain, and the ’area’ for which the permit is required is  one of  the matters  that the  application must state. The  word route  which has  been used  in association with ’area’ in section 45(1) is defined by section 2(28A) as "a line  of travel  which specifies the highway which may be traversed by  a  motor  vehicle  between  one  terminus  and another." Section 2(1) defines ’area’ as follows:- -           " "area",  in relation  to any  provision of  this      Act, means  such area  as  the  State  Government  may,      having regard  to the  requirements of  that provision,      specify by notification in the official Gazette;"      The terms  and expressions  defined in  section 2  will apply only  if there  is nothing repugnant in the subject or context as  the opening  words of  the section indicate. The first proviso  to section 45 (1) speaks of the route or area proposed in  an application for a permit and, as such, there can be  no question  here of the State Government specifying the area.  Clearly, the  definition of  area in section 2(1) has no  relevance in  this context.  The question  therefore remains to  be answered, whether ’area‘ in section 45(1) has been used  in the  wider sense  of geographical  area, or it means only  the area  of motorable  roads ? The section uses both the  words, ’route’ and ’area’, whichever is applicable in a  given case.  A route  as defined  is a  line of travel between two termini on a highway, but the idea of a route as a notional  line that  the definition  suggests has not been consistently   maintained    in    the    Act.    In    Dosa Satyanarayanamurty etc.  v. The  Andhra Pradesh  State  Road Transport Corpn.  (1) this  Court  observed:  "There  is  no inherent in consistency between an "area" and a "route". The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

proposed  route  is  also  an  area  limited  to  the  route proposed." A  similar observation  was made  in C.P.C. Motor Service, Mysore v. The State of Mysore(2) that in the scheme of the  Act, by  the word  "route" is  meant "not  only  the notional line  but also  the  actual  road  over  which  the omnibuses run".  Of course,  it would  not be correct to say that the  Act recognizes  no distinction between ’route’ and ’area’. A  route may  mean not  only the  notional  line  of travel between  one terminus  and another, but also the area of the  road over  which the motor vehicles ply, yet the two terms are  not interchangeable;  as pointed out in C.P. Sikh Regular Motor  Service etc.  v. The State of Maharashtra,(3) "a route  is an  area plus something more". This "something" is the  notional line  of travel  between two  termini which distinguishes a route ‘- from an area simpliciter. The first proviso  to   section  45(1)   speaks  of  "route  or  area" apparently  making  a  distinction  between  them  to  cover applications relatable  to either.  A contract carriage does not ply  along a  fixed route  or routes  but over  an area, which is  why an  application for a contract carriage permit has to contain a statement as to the proposed area.      (1) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 642 (644).      (2) [1962 Supp. (1)                                            S.C.R. 717 (725).                   (3) [1975] 2 S.C.R. 10. 32      All the  decisions to which we have referred above have taken the  view that by area is meant the road, the physical tract, over  which the  motor vehicles ply without reference to any  notional line of travel. Of course, this meaning was given to the word ’area’ in the context of the provisions of the Act  considered in these cases, in none of which section 45 came  up for  consideration. We  do not  however find any reason to  think that  ’area’ in  section 45  ( 1  )  has  a different   connotation.   Except   that   the   territorial jurisdiction of  the regional transport authorities is fixed in terms  of geographical  area-districtwise in the State of Karnataka-’area’ in  that wider  sense is  irrelevant to the purposes of  the Act.  Counsel for  the  respondent,  Mysore State  Road   Transport  Corporation,  Bangalore,  built  an argument on the provisions of section 12 of the Act that the meaning of  ’area’ is  not restricted  only to  the area  of motorable roads in a region. Section 42 prohibits the use of a transport vehicle in any public place except in accordance with the  conditions of  a valid permit. A transport vehicle includes a motor vehicle used for the carriage of passengers [section 2(33)  and section  2(25). Public  place  has  been defined by section 2(24) of the Act as "road, street, way or other place,  whether a  thoroughfare or  not, to  which the public have  a right  of access,  and includes  any place or stand at  which passengers  are picked  up or  set down by a stage carriage".  lt was  argued that  a  contract  carriage which does  not ply  on a  fixed route  could be used in any public place  which need  not necessarily  be a  road; this, according to counsel, indicated that the word area occurring in section  45(1) meant  geographical area and not motorable roads only.  We do  not find  it  possible  to  accept  this contention. Assuming  that a contract carriage could be used in places  which are not really roads, the fact remains that a contract  carriage being  a motor  vehicle is intended for use upon  roads, and  any casual  use of  it in places other than roads is not decisive on the interpretation of the word area. The  prohibition against the use of transport vehicles in public  places which  are not  roads serves  to  repel  a possible claim  that for  using a  motor vehicle  in  places which cannot  be called  roads no  permit was  necessary. We

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

hold therefore  that the  word area  in the first proviso to section 45(1)  of the  Act means the area of motorable roads within the  territorial jurisdiction of a regional transport authority. The  Regional Transport  Authority, Mandya,  held that it  had within  its jurisdiction  the largest  area  of motorable roads  in the State of Karnataka, and this finding has not  been  disturbed  by  the  appellate  tribunal.  The appellate tribunal  thought that  the expression  "motorable roads" was  vague as  the area comprising of motorable roads would be  changing from  time to time", but the jurisdiction of a regional transport authority to grant an inter-regional permit depends  on the existing area of motorable roads when an application for a permit is made.      In the  course  of  arguments  before  us  doubts  were expressed  on   the  reasonableness  of  a  provision  which requires an  application for  an inter-regional permit to be made to  the regional  transport authority  of the region in which the  major portion  of the proposed route or area lies when section  63 of  the Act  provides elaborate  checks and lays 33 down conditions  for  the  validation  of  permits  for  use outside the  region in  which it  has been  granted. It  was submitted that in view of the provisions of section 63 there was no  point in  insisting on the application being made to the Regional  Transport Authority  of any particular region. We see the logic of this submission, but this is a matter of policy on  which the  court has  no say. However, the policy itself does  not appear to have been stated very clearly. On the provisions  as they  are it is difficult to say that the construction put  forward on  behalf of the third respondent is altogether implausible. It is also true that there can be practical   difficulties,   whichever   interpretation   was adopted. This being the position we should have thought that instead of  leaving the  law in  such a  slippery state, the State should  clarify it  by appropriate legislation so that the law  may  be  clear  and  easily  ascertainable  by  the concerned section of the public.      The appeal  is allowed and the impugned order including the order  of the  Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal is set  aside. We  make it clear that all we have decided in this case  is that the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, had jurisdiction  to issue  the  permit  to  the  appellant, whether the permit satisfies the other conditions of a valid inter-regional permit  did not  arise for  consideration  in this appeal  In the  circumstances of  the case  we make  no order as to costs. S.R.                                         Appeal allowed. 34