Karnataka High Court
S.R. Rangaiah vs Senior Regional Transport Officer on 17 November, 1980
Equivalent citations: AIR1981KANT62, ILR1981KAR299, AIR 1981 KARNATAKA 62, ILR (1981) 1 KANT 299 (1981) 1 KANT LJ 26, (1981) 1 KANT LJ 26
Author: K. Jagannatha Shetty
Bench: K. Jagannatha Shetty
ORDER
1. The decision on the question raised in this case turns upon the meaning and scope of Ss. 33 (1) (b) and 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ("the Act").
2. The facts leading to the petition are these: The petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. MYU 3485. The vehicle had a temporary permit for the route Davangere to Sathanur granted by the R. T. A., Chitradurga. On .15-2-1975, the vehicle was found plying at a place called Kenchanakere which was two miles away from Sathanur. The Motor Vehicles Inspector who checked the vehicle, submitted a report to the Regional Transport port Officer ("R.. T. 0."), Bellary stating that the vehicle was used without a permit on route beyond Sathanur. Upon that report, the R. T. 0. issued a notice to the petitioner under S. 33 (1) (b) of the act calling upon him to show cause why the certificate of registration of the vehicle should not be suspended. The petitioner personally appeared before the R. T. 0. and submitted that the villagers of Kenchankere forcibly took away the vehicle in connection with a local festival and therefore he should be excused. The R. T.O. did not accept that explanation. 'He made an order under S. 33 (1) (b) of the Act suspending the certificate of registration for a period of four months.
3. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy transport Commissioner, Gulbarga Division. That appeal was dismissed' upholding the order of the R. T. 0. The petitioner now challenges the said orders in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner urged that having regard to the offence proved in the instant case, the R. T. 0., Bellary had no jurisdiction to take action under Section 33 (1) (b), and it was for the Regional Transport Authority ("R. T. A") to take action under S. 60 of the Act.
5. The question urged is an important one and if the matter falls under S. 60, then the impugned order must be struck down as being without jurisdiction,
6. 1 turn now to the statutory provisions, and quote below the relevant - portions of the said sections:
"Section 33. Suspension of registration.(1) If any registering authority or other prescribed authority has reason to believe that any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction -
(a) xx xx xx
(b) has been, or is being, used for hire or reward without a valid permit for being used as such, the authority may, after giving the owner an opportunity of making any representation he may wish to take (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgment due at his address entered in the certificate of registration) for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle-
xx xx xx xx Section 60. Cancellation and suspension of permits- (1) The transport authority which granted a, permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit -
(a) xx xx xx
(b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or xx xx xx xx Provided that no permit shall be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation.
xx xx xx xx (3) Where a permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under Clause (a) or C1. (b) or Clause (e) of sub-section (1) and the transport authority is of opinion that having regard it) the circumstances of the case it would not be necessary or expedient so to cancel or suspend the permit if the holder of the permit agrees to pay a certain sum of money, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the transport authority may, instead of cancelling or suspending the permit, as the case may be, recover from the holder of the permit the sum of money agreed upon.
(4) The powers exercisable by the transport authority tinder sub-section (3) may, where an appeal has been preferred under Section 64, be exercised also by that appellate authority,"
On a close analysis of the substance of those sections, we find at least three main distinctions:
First: Section 33, confers power on the registering authority of the vehicle or other prescribed authority. Rule 67 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 sets out those prescribed authorities. Section 60 confers power only on the transport authority or an authority to ' whom the power under Section 60 has been delegated. Rule 96 of the Rules provided for delegation of such power for prompt and convenient dispatch of business. Under the scheme of the Act, the registering authority is quite different from the transport authority.
Second: The power conferred by See. 33 is only to suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle whereas no such power is conferred by S. 60. Under S. 60, it is the permit of the vehicle that could be suspended or cancelled and not the certificate of registration of the vehicle.
Third: Sub-section (3) of S. 60 provides for compounding the offence. It confers on 1he R. T. A, or its delegated authority a direction and power to accept the sum of money agreed upon by the holder of the permit if it feels that it would not be necessary or expedient to cancel or suspend the permit. No such discretionary- power is vested in the registering authority under S. 33.
7. Sections 33 and 60 are thus not only mutually exclusive, but also widely apart. The difficulty, however, arises when we turn to the basis upon which the respective powers could be exercised. Section 33 (1) authorises the registering authority or the prescribed authority to suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle, if it has reason to believe that the vehicle has been or is being, used for hire or reward with out a valid permit. Section 60 on the other hand, confers power on the transport authority which granted the permit, to cancel or suspend the permit if the holder of the permit uses or causes or a rows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit. One refers to the use of a vehicle without a valid permit, while the other refers to the use -of a vehicle in a manner not authorised by the permit. The difference thus goes to the root. Section 33 covers cases of misuse of a vehicle which has no permit for the purpose; while Section 60 covers cases of misuse of a vehicle in breach of the conditions of the permit granted. The distinction discerned between the two sections is like the difference in carrying on a business without licence and carrying on a business contrary to the conditions of the licence.
8. In the instant case, the vehicle in fact had a permit on the date on which it was found plying pit a place beyond the authorised route, or beyond the route authorised by the permit, It had a valid permit to ply on the route Davangere to Sathanur. But it was taken to Kenchanakere which it was away by two miles from Sathanur. The operation of the vehicle beyond Sathanur was therefore contrary to the conditions of the permit. That being the facts found, it is not S. 33 -which is attracted to the case, but only S. 60. My view finds support from the observation of this Court in M/s. Hanuman Transport Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/s. Ruby General Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 1973 Mys 335), in which it was observed that plying a stage-carriage on a road not covered by the route mentioned in the permit amounts only to a breach of the condition of the permit and does not affect the purpose for which such permit was granted.
9. It Must therefore be held that the petitioner has made use of his vehicle in a manner not authorised by the permit, or committed a breach of the condition of the permit and he could have been proceeded only under S. 60 and not under S. 33 of the Act. The impugned orders must therefore he held to be illegal and without authority of law.
10. In the result, the rule is made absolute and the orders complained of are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.
11. Order accordingly.