DELHI ADMINISTRATION v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors.

routes were counter-signed in the same terms. The routes above-mentioned were extended by the Punjab State. authorities under permits granted by them for intra-State routes con necting different towns in the State of Punjab itself. Thus a permit was issned in favour of the Punjab roadways for the route from Kamal to Chandigarh so that the bus operating on the Delhi-Karna! route would carry passengers from Delhi to Chandigarh via Kamal. On the 25th July 1956, officers of the two States came to an agree ment whereby the State of Punjab was given the right to extend its ser-· vices on inter-State routes to any town in the State of Punjab. This agreement was subject to ratification by the Governments of the States, which was, however, never accorded. In the year 1966, the State of Delhi objected to the exploitation by the State of Punjab of the inter-State routes in the manner above stated, that is, by extending them beyond the termini specified in that behalf under the counter-signatures made by the State of Delhi and approached the Inter-State Transport Commission (hereinafter called the Commis sion) constituted under sulrsection (1) of Section 63A of the Act with "} .. • • * ' DELHI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, ].) 73 a request for interference. After hearing counsel for the two States the ~ Commission passed an order dated 27th August, 1966, in favour ot the State of Delhi. Tl]e operative part of that order alongwith the reasons lis!ed by the Commission in support of it is extracted below : • ' • .. -· "Section 48(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, pres cribes that every stage carriage permit shall be expressed to be valid only for a specified route or routes of for a specified area. It appears, therefore, that if a permit is expressed to be valid only for the one specified inter-State route, the same transport vehicle covered by the same inter-State permit can not be allowed to proceed further to another route with liberty to pick up passengers en route on a second route, which is an intra-State route, as thi8' would be in violation of the pro visions of the Act. There is no objection to the same vehicle running on another route under a different permit, but it would be objectionable if passengers who embark on the ro.ute covered by the inter-State permit are given direct tickets to any town on the second route for which the vehicle holds on intra-State permit The issue of such a direct ticket would amount to extending the span, oI the inter-State route, which In other is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. words, there can be no objection to the linking of the two routes but this linking should not involve boarding of direct passengers, i.e., those holding one ticket for travel over both the routes on either of the two routes. "On a careful consideration of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Commission advise under Section 63A(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, thlit it would not be in order if one vehicle operating on two permits for two routes were to book direct passengers travelling on both the routes on direct tickets for places on both the routes. Operations which would contravene this advice should be stopped and the services be so regulated to ensure that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are not violated." The State of Punjab went up in appeal to the Inter-State Transport Appellant Tribnnal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) under rule 24 of the Inter-State Transport Comnpssion Rules, 1960. That appeal was f. dismissed on the 4th July 1967 through an order, paragraph 3 to 7 of which may be re-produced for facility of reference : "3. The learned counsel for the Delhi Administration replied that the issue of tickets was a condition of a permit under Section 48(3) (xiv) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The 6-520SCI/78 A c D E F G H , .;.,. _ _,,_;,.;._ . 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] l S.C.R. • ·~· I I ~ • A B c D E F G H inter-State permit from Delhi to Karnal was, therefore, sub ject to the condition that tickets bearing specified particu lars shall be issued to passengers and shall show the This must be construed to mean that actually charged. the ticket which is issued as a conditi,on attaching to a single permit would be restricted to the route or routes co vered by that permit. As the inter-State route alone covered by the permit which is countersigned by the Delhi Administration, the said permit would require the issue of a ticket only on the Delhi-Kamal route but not beyond. "4. We think that the contention of the Delhi Adminis tration is further supported by Section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act under which no owner of a "transport vehicle" (which includes a stage carriage) shall use the vehkle in any public place, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or a State Transport Authority authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being the Delhi The vehicle starting from Delhi on used. Karnal route would be governed by the conditions of inter-State permit countersigned by the Delhi Administra The use of the vehicle at Delhi or, for the matter of tion. that, at any place on the inter-State route, mnst be governed by the conditions of the inter-State permit alone. We have already construed seotion 48(3) (xiv) to mean tickets which must be issued as a condition of the permit must relate to the route or routes or area covered by It would follow therefore tli.at tickets to be issued permit. from Delhi oonld not be for any place which was beyond Karna! and, therefore, not covered by the inter-State permit. "5. Learned Counsel for the Government of Punjab sub mitted that the Delhi Administration has countersigned only the inter-State route covered by a permit issued by the Government of Punjab with the knowledge that the same This. permit was valid fp'r a further intra-State route also. however, cannot mean that the Delltl Administration are estopped from contending that under the conditions of the inter-State permit, a ticket for a place beyond the Inter State ronte cannot be issued. "6. From the point of view of the convenience of passengers, we would have liked the vehicle starting Delhi to issue a long distance ticket to a place even beyond DELHI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, !.) 75 . ~ Karna! so that the passengers starting from Delhi conld be assured of reaching their destination beyond KarnaL Unfortunately, the attainment of this objective has been fettered by the existing provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act referred to above . "7. For the above reasons, therefore, we are of the view that the advice given by the Inter-State Transport Commis sion was, on the whole, correct, thongh we have taken the liberty of adding to the reasons on which the ad vice could be supported. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed." A B This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State of Haryana (which had been carved out of the erstwhile State of Punjab in meantime) in the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Consti tution of India which we have mentioned above and which has been accepted by a Divisipn Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The High Court took note of the various provisions of the Act and con cluded that there was no warrant for the proposition that tickets could not be issued at Delhi for stations beyond Karna! by the Haryana Roadways for a bus operating under a Q_erniit in respect of the Delhi- ·~ Karna! route and that the Commission and the Tribunal had both The High Court observed that erred in holding to the contrary. under clause (xiv) of sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act, Delhi State could impose conditions subject to which its counter signature in relation to a permit covering an inter··state route was to be valid, but added that such conditions could only be those which It further found that were covered by that clause and no others. no condition preventing the permit-holder from issuing a direct ticket from Delhi to Chandigarh via Karna! was ever imposed by the State · ~ ./Transport Authority, Delhi, and also that such a condition could not be imposed inasmuch its (a) the same would not be relatable to the inter-State route and (b) it would not be covered by clause (xiv) It turned down a plea that the issuance of tickets from aforesaid. Delhi to Chandigarh by the Haryana Roadways affected the identity In the result, therefore, the High Court is.sued a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Commission and the Tribunal and restrained ~ Delhi Administration from interfering with the operation of ' Stage carriages of the State of Haryana on the Delhi-Haryiina inter State routes on the plea that. the issue of direct tickets beyond the ter- minal station.s in Haryana on those routes was pi;ohibitecl either by the provisions of the Act or by any condition attached by the State Transport Authority, Delhi. .. of the Delhi-Karna! route or amounted to its extension. c D E F G H 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1979] 1 S.C.R. A

2. Before us, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are : B C (1) The Regional Transport Authority, Delhi, had the power under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 63 read with clause (xiv) abovementioned to impose, while according its counter-signature to a pe.rmit relating to an inter-State route, a condition to the effect that tickets shall not be issued for any station beyond the two specified termini and such a condition could be spelt out of the counter-signature above extracted by necessary implication. ""'· t (2) The counter-signatures covered only inter-State routes having+ specified termini and the issuance of tickets by the Haryana Road ways for stations beyond the terminus located in the Haryana State and specified in a particular permit (which has been countersigned by the Delhi State authorities) amounted to an extension of the route which the Act did not permit. D We find no force in either of these contentions for the reasons which follow and whiclJ. are substantially the same as advanced by the High Court in the detailed judgmeut under appeal. E F G H

3. Sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the Act states : "(2) A Regional Transport authority when countersign- ing the permit may attach to the permit any qondi tion which it might have imposed if it has granted the permit, aiud may likewfae vary any condition attached to the permit by the Authority by which the permit was granted." The conditions which a Regional Transport Authority may attacV to a permit while granting it are contained in clause (xiv) abovemen~, tioned which runs thus : " (xiv) that tickets bearing specified particulars shall be is- sued to passengers and shall show the fares actually charged and that records of tickets issued shall be kept in a specified manner;" • According to this clause, the conditions attached to the grant of \ !I permit may be- (a) that the tickets issued to passengers shall bear speci fied particulars; DELHI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, 1.) 77 (b) that the tickets shall show the fares actually charged; A (c) that records of the tickets issued shall be kept in the manner specified. l1,01der that he shall not ply his vehicle beyond the specified None of these conditions embraces a restriction on the permit • State route even if that is done under another permit which is valid according to law, and we, therefore, do not 'see how clause (vix) · ~ as above extracted read with sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 of the Act helps the case of the appellant. B c has D Learned counsel for the appellant

4. Nor can we agree with the plea that the counter-signature above extracted cpuld be construed as laying down a condition that permit-holder could not ply his vehicle beyond the specified terminus in the State of Haryana. laid emphasis on the words "Tickets will be issued for the destinations between Delhi and Karna!. Destination boards should be exhibi ted," and wants us to interpret them as implying a prohibition on the use of the qyncerned vehicles beyond Karna!. We are of opinion, however, that no such interpretation can be placed on them. They merely lay down positive instructions which the permit-holder E had to carry out, namely, that he would not refuse the issue of a ticket between the two !ermini, i.e., Delhi and Karna!, and that he would also exhibit a Q<i'ard stating that the vehicle in question would cover the route from Delhi to Karna!. Beyond that the words do not go and cannot be construed to mean that the vehicle.could notp!y beyond ~arnal or that a board saying that it was going to Chandigarh via , _ ,, Karna! oould not be exhibited, or that tickets could not be issued ' In for any stations except those lying between Delhi and Karna!. fact, the authority counter-signing the permit had no concern at all with any r.oute beyond Karna!. The plying of the vehicle from Karna! to Chandigarh would be governed not by the permit covering G the Delhi-Kamal route or by the counter-signature on it but by another permit issued by the authority competent to deal with the route bet ween Kamal and Chandigarh. The first contention raised on be half of the appellant is, therefore, found to be wthout substance .

5. We also find no force · in the plea that the plying of vehicles H by the Haryana Roadways beyond the inter-State route under valid permits issued by the competent authority would amount to • i t • .. 78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1979] 1 S.C.R. A "extension" of the route such as is prohibited by the Act. Reliance in support of the plea was placed on sub-s. ( 8) of S. 57 of the Act which lays down : B c D E F "(8) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or, in the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by alter ing the route covered by it or in the case of a con tract carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new p_ermit : Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of a stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route or in any area to increase the frequency of the ser vice so provided, without any increase in the number of vehicles." As pointed out by the High Court, the language of .the sub-section ~ applies only to a case where the permit-holder applies for the varia- tion of the conditions of his permit by inclusion of a new route routes or a new area or by increasing the number of services above In the case before us this situation does the specified maximum. not arise at all inasmuch as the Haryana Roadways has not applied for the variation of any permit in any way and has, on the other hand, taken and exploited quite another permit for an entirely different route from another cidmpetent authority. Apart from sub-sec. (8) abovementioncd, we have not been referred to any provision of the {'~ Act in support of the plea under consideration which, therefore, fails. G H

6. Learned Connsel for the appellant drew our attention tid a eossible unfortunate sitnation which might result from the conclu sions which the High Court has reached and, in our opinion, reach ed rightly. His apprehension was that in order to make more money and to avoid inconvenience to itself the Haryana Roadways, while operating under the permit pertaining to the Delhi-Karna! route, would perhaps not issue any tickets to passengers bound for stations lying in between Delhi and Kamal so long as it could find customers travel ling directly from Delhi to Chandigarh and that in that event the real purpose of the counter-signatnre would be wholly defeated. We • ( DELllI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, J.) 79 A ' would certainly not approve of such a situation but then it is nobody's case that the Haryana Roadways has been plying its buses on the Delhi-Chandigarh route or, for that matter, any other route, in that fashion. However, we may make it clear that if any long distance passengers are given preference over those leaving Delhi for a station lying between the termini specified in any permit bearing the counter- ,. signature of the Delhi State authorities, a peremptory condition attach- B ed to the counter-signature would have been violated, and that State would be entitled to take such action as may be open to it under the law. Subject to this observation, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. • S.R. Appeal dismissed. - { i !'