ORDER
1. The Farrukhabad-Jarianpur via Ghatiaghat-Rajapur-Amritpur route (hereinafter referred to as the route) appears to be partly notified and partly non-notified. This Court, in a writ petition preferred by the petitioner and others, on 21st April, 1989, directed the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Authority) to consider and dispose of the applications made by the petitioner and others for the grant of temporary permits on the route. In pursuance of this direction, the Secretary of the Transport Authority granted a temporary stage carriage permit to the petitioner on the non-notified portion of the route and rejected the application for the notified portion on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to grant a temporary permit on that portion. The order rejecting the application for notified portion is being impugned in the present writ petition.
2. Section 68F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) casts a mandatory duty upon a Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport authority, as the case may be, to issue a permit to a State Transport Undertaking if such an undertaking makes an application for a permit in pursuance of an approved scheme. The enacting part of the provisions of S. 68-FF mandates that no Transport Authority shall grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. This embargo is relaxed by the proviso to the said provision which lays down that where no application for permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the Transport Authority concerned may grant temporary permit to any person in respect of any area or route or portion thereof subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route.
3. There is no dispute that the petitioner can get a temporary permit on the notified portion of the route only if the conditions laid down in the proviso to S. 68-FF are in existence. Under the proviso the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, alone and not their Secretary are authorised to grant a temporary permit. Even this proposition is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The contention, however, is that the delegation made by the Transport Authority in favour of its Secretary to grant temporary permits under S. 62 of the Act clothes the Secretary with sufficient power to grant a temporary permit under S. 68-FF. To buttress this submission, Sri Saunders has further submitted that, in substance and in reality, a temporary permit will be granted under S. 62 of the Act even though the occasion for exercising such a power will arise on the conditions enumerated in the proviso to S. 68-FF being fulfilled. The submission is fallacious.
4. Sub-section (5) of S.44 of the Act provides that the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by Rules made under S. 68, may delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said Rules. Therefore, the jurisdiction given to a particular Transport Authority to delegate its powers and functions is not absolute. It is hedged-in with two conditions. The first is that the Rules made under S.68 should provide for the delegation of its powers and functions by the Transport Authority.
Secondly, the delegation, if permitted, shall be subject to the restrictions, limitations and conditions as laid down in the rules.
5. Before we advert to the Rule, we may have a quick look into the scheme of Chapter IVA of the Act in which S. 68-FF finds place. Section 68-C provides for the preparation of a draft scheme to take over a particular route either to the total or partial exclusion of a private operator. We have already referred to S.68-F. In S. 68-F(1-A) the Legislative mandate is that where any scheme has been published by a State Transport Undertaking under S. 68-C that undertaking may apply for a temporary permit in respect of an area or route or portion thereof specified in the scheme and if such an application is made the Transport Authority concerned shall, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to increase in the public interest the number of vehicles operating in such area or route or portion thereof issue the temporary permit prayed for by the State Transport Undertaking. It will be seen that the condition precedent for the consideration of the application of a State Transport Undertaking is the satisfaction of the Transport Authority concerned that it is necessary to increase the number of vehicles operating in a particular area or route and the yardstick for such a satisfaction is the public interest. Further, once the Transport Authority is satisfied that there is need for an additional stage carriage vehicle, it is mandatory to grant permit to the State Transport Undertaking. It is also laid down in the said provision that the temporary permit is to be granted for the period intervening between the date of publication of the draft scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme. Section 68-F(1-B) fixes the outer limit of the period of the temporary permit granted to the State Transport Undertaking. Section 68-F(1-C) contains a scheme akin to the one contained in S. 68-FF. It provides that a temporary permit can be granted to a private operator if no application for a temporary permit is made under S. 68-F(1-A) by the State Transport Undertaking and the temporary permit if granted to a private operator shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Under-
taking. Like S. 63-FF the provisions as contained in S. 68-F(1-D) impose a complete ban upon the grant of any permit on any route or area which is the subject-matter of a notification under S. 68-C except in the situations provided for in sub-section (1-A) or subsection (1-C) of S. 68-F. It is to be remembered that sub-sections (1 -A), (1 -B), (1-C) and (1-D) of S. 68-F and S. 68-FF were introduced into the Act by Act 56 of 1969 with effect from 2nd March, 1970. Thus, it is clear that the rule-making authority on or after 2nd March, 1970, had full knowledge of the fact that a Transport Authority had the powers and functions to grant temporary permits under Ss.62, 68-F(1-A), 68-F(1-C) and the proviso to S. 68-FF of the Act.
6. Rule 44-A of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which have admittedly been framed under S. 68, insofar as it is relevant for the grant of temporary stage carriage permits, provides that a State or a Regional Transport Authority may, by general or special resolution, recorded in its proceedings and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the resolution, delegate to its Secretary all or any of its powers under S. 62 of the Act, regarding the grant of temporary permits. As already indicated, this petition is based on the premise that the Transport Authority has made a delegation, in favour of its Secretary of all its powers under S. 62 of the Act. Section 62, insofar as it is relevant to the present controversy, enables a Regional Transport Authority to grant permits, effective for a limited period not exceeding four months to authorise the use of the transport vehicles temporarily in three situations, (1) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, (2) for the purposes of seasonal business and (3) to meet a particular temporary need. The scheme of Chapter IV, wherein S. 62 lies, is that the limit or a ceiling of the number of stage carriage vehicles to be plied on a particular route or area has to be fixed first (S. 47(3)) before an application for a permanent stage carriage permit is received. And, this limitation or ceiling is to be fixed keeping in view the considerations as enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of S.47, the paramount consideration being public interest or the interest of the travelling public.
Section 62, on a bare reading of it, does not empower a Transport Authority to fix a number keeping in view the public interest as it is required by the provisions as contained in S.43(3) of the Act. In S. 68-F the State Transport Undertaking is enjoined to obtain a permit in accordance with an approved scheme. It is to be remembered that the approved scheme must provide for the number of services to be rendered by the State Transport Undertaking. Therefore, under the proviso to S. 68-FF the number of permits to be granted under the proviso to S. 68-F too has to be determined by referring to the contents of the approved scheme. We have already shown above that the period for which a permit is granted under S. 68-F(1-A), S. 68-F(1-C) and proviso to S. 68-FF has been determined by the Legislature. In S.62 too the maximum period for which a temporary permit can be granted at a time cannot exceed four months.
7. In Sec. 62 the purpose of granting a temporary permit, the condition under which a temporary permit can be granted and the period for which a temporary permit can be granted are fixed. So is the situation when temporary permits are being granted under S.68-F(1-A), 68-F(1-C) and the proviso to S. 68-FF. The source of the powers to grant temporary permits under the different provisions are distinct and separate. The provisions of S. 62 have no rational connection with the provisions as contained in the proviso to S. 68-FF. The only common factor is that under both the provisions temporary permits are granted but such permits are granted to meet different situations. The rule-making authority, in Rule 44-A, does not contemplate the delegation of its powers and functions by a Transport Authority to grant temporary permits either under S. 68-F(1-A), 68-F(1-C) or under the proviso to S. 68-FF.
8. This petition is, therefore, devoid of substance. It is dismissed summarily.
9. Petition dismissed.