Asian Bus Service vs State Transport Authority And ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 613 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. In this Petition, a challenge has been laid to the decision of the Respondents dated 30.8.2005 informing the Petitioner that its request for allotment of inter-State Private Stage Carriage Permit has not been accepted by the Chairman (State Transport Authority)/Commissioner (Transport). Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on Section 80 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (M.V. Act in short) and stresses upon the use of the words 'a permit of any kind' employed in Sub-section (1) of that Section to contend that a permit must be granted regardless of the failure of the two concerned states to arrive at an agreement on this subject.

2. The difficulty which the Petitioner encounters is that in the absence of any Agreement between the Union Territory of Delhi and the State of Haryana, its application has been turned down as mentioned above. On behalf of the Respondents reliance has been placed on Section 88 of the M.V. Act which contemplates the existence of an Agreement between the two States before permits for plying of commercial vehicles between the two States is entertained. In the first place, since Section 88 follows Section 80, it will be the later Section which will regulate the earlier Section. Furthermore, assuming that Section 80 is of general application, it will be modulated by another Section dealing with a particular situation. This, in essence, is the meaning of the Latin maxim generlia specialibus non derogant.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India ; Hans Raj Kehar v. State of U.P. ; Jagdip Singh v. Jagir Chand ; Subhash Chander v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal ; Nasiruddin v. State Transport Authority (DB); Om Prakash Pahwa v. State of Delhi 1998(46) DRJ(DB); District Collector of Hyderabad v. Ibrahim and Company ; T.N. Raghunatha Reddy v. Mysore State Transport Authority ; The State of Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar AIR 1969 SC 147.

4. The matter, however, is covered on all fours by the most recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Venkatakrishnan v. State Transport Authority, Kerala (2004) 11 SCC 207, the relevant paragraphs of which read thus:

12. Furthermore, the definition of 'route', as contained in Section 2(38) of the Act means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. Therefore, before an inter- State route in respect whereof a permit is sought to be granted is determined, the question of filing any application therefore by a person before the State Transport authority of his State would not arise unless an agreement in relation thereto has been entered into by the States concerned and the routes as also the number of trips are fixed there under. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the State Transport Authority of one State would have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for grant of an inter-State route, particularly when Section 80 of the Act will have no application in relation thereof unless an agreement in entered into by the State concerned.

13. A purposive and meaningful construction, it is trite, must be given to a statute, so that it is made workable. A statute should not be construed in such a manner, which would create a vacuum. In the absence of any route being fixed in terms of an agreement, in the event it be held that an application for grant of permit for inter-State route can be entertained, the same would lead to a futile exercise. A mutual approval of the States concerned, in the matter, therefore, must be held to be mandatory. In other words, the proviso, appended to Sub-section (4) of Section 88 of the Act, must be read conjointly with Sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 88 thereof and, consequently, it must be held that by necessary implication agreements are contemplated for creation of inter-State routes.

14. We are in agreement with the view taken by this Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar case.

15. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

5. Based on the exposition of the law in Ashwini Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner , followed in Venkatakrishnan, a perusal of the impugned Order dated 30.8.2005 would disclose that it is impervious to judicial Review. It proceeds on the correct understanding of the law. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that all the questions raised by the Petitioner have not been answered in the impugned Order. I cannot subscribe to that view. If, as contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Venkatakrishnan is per incuriam, the Petitioner's remedy lies elsewhere.

6. Petition is disposed of.