CLX-IN-MOTOR-2026-001154

Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, Moudhapara, Raipur, Appellant Versus Regional Transport Authority, Raipur and another, Respondents.

Supreme Court of India

Dismissed

Core ratio / Key holding

Rule 63 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, by virtue of the phrase 'except as may be otherwise prescribed' in Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, supersedes the direction in Section 63(1) and vests the power to countersign an inter-regional permit in the Regional Transport Authority that grants the renewal of the permit. The word 'may' in Rule 63 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, though permissive in form, must be construed as obligatory, as the object of the power conferred is to effectuate a legal right. The Regional Transport Authority of a region other than the one granting the permit (e.g., Raipur RTA) is not competent to renew the counter-signature on an inter-regional permit, as its power under Rule 62 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, is taken away by the provisions of Rule 63.

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 — Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 — Inter-regional permit — Counter-signature — Competence of Regional Transport Authority

Statutory Interpretation — Construction of 'may' as 'shall'

Issues for determination

  • Whether the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, was competent to renew the counter-signature on the permit for the inter-regional route granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur.

Ratio decidendi

  • Rule 63 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, by virtue of the phrase 'except as may be otherwise prescribed' in Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, supersedes the direction in Section 63(1) and vests the power to countersign an inter-regional permit in the Regional Transport Authority that grants the renewal of the permit.
  • The word 'may' in Rule 63 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, though permissive in form, must be construed as obligatory, as the object of the power conferred is to effectuate a legal right.
  • The Regional Transport Authority of a region other than the one granting the permit (e.g., Raipur RTA) is not competent to renew the counter-signature on an inter-regional permit, as its power under Rule 62 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, is taken away by the provisions of Rule 63.

Important points

  • Held, Rule 63 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, vests the power to countersign an inter-regional permit in the Regional Transport Authority that grants the renewal, overriding Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
  • Declared, the word 'may' in Rule 63 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, is to be construed as obligatory, not permissive, for effectuating a legal right.
  • Affirmed, an inter-regional permit is valid for the region of the granting authority even if not countersigned for the portion outside that region, as per Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. case.

Related orders from this authority

Read the full order on ClaimLex

Get the complete order text, a licence-stamped PDF, the citator (which orders cite this one), AI-powered answers, and save it to your matters.

Editorial summary prepared by ClaimLex — for reference only, not the official record. Please refer to the original order issued by the authority for the authoritative text.