Samarathmal - Appellant Versus Jugaldas - Respondent

Core ratio / Key holding

Headnote

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - S.44(3)(b), S.43 - State Transport Authority - Inter-Statal Permits - Counter-signatures - Jurisdiction.

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - S.63(3-A) - Reciprocal Agreements - Retrospective Application.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Art.226 - Writ of Certiorari - Discretionary Remedy - Petitioner's Conduct - Estoppel - Acquiescence.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Art.226 - Writ of Certiorari - Alternative Remedy - Discretion.

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - S.68-F(1)(1-D) - Inter-Statal vs. Inter-Regional Routes - Scheme Publication.

Issues for determination

• Whether the State Transport Authority (STA) had jurisdiction to grant counter-signatures on permits for inter-Statal routes.
• Whether Section 43(1)(iv) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, required publication of directions for giving effect to reciprocal agreements.
• Whether Section 63(3-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, applied retrospectively to reciprocal agreements entered into prior to its enactment.
• Whether the inter-Statal route for which permit was granted overlapped a scheme published for an inter-regional route, thereby invalidating the counter-signature.
• Whether the petitioners were disentitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution due to alternative remedy and their conduct (acquiescence/estoppel).

Ratio decidendi

• The State Transport Authority (STA) has jurisdiction to grant counter-signatures on permits for inter-Statal routes when empowered by a State Government notification under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to deal with such applications.
• Section 63(3-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, inserted by Act No. 56 of 1969, is not retrospective and does not apply to reciprocal agreements entered into prior to its coming into force, as it is a composite provision affecting substantive rights.
• A scheme published for an inter-regional route does not prevent the creation of an inter-Statal route under a reciprocal agreement, particularly if the scheme was subsequently withdrawn, as the object of the Motor Vehicles Act is to secure public convenience and co-ordinated transport.
• A petitioner who has derived benefits under a reciprocal agreement by obtaining permit renewals from the State Transport Authority (STA) is disentitled from invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the STA's jurisdiction in granting counter-signatures under the same agreement to another party.
• The High Court's power to grant a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable, and the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal has a significant bearing on the exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction, even if the authority's action was initially perceived as without jurisdiction.

Important points

• Held: Rajasthan STA possessed jurisdiction to grant counter-signatures for inter-Statal permits following the notification dated April 21, 1970.
• Clarified: Section 63(3-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is not retrospective and does not govern reciprocal agreements made before its enactment.
• Held: An inter-regional transport scheme, especially if withdrawn, does not invalidate inter-Statal permits granted under a reciprocal agreement.
• Declared: Petitioners benefiting from a reciprocal agreement are precluded by their conduct from challenging the STA's jurisdiction under the same agreement via writ petition.
• Affirmed: Writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy, and alternative remedy and petitioner's conduct are crucial factors in its exercise.

Keywords