Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Chapters V & VI; ss. 88 and 98 – Overriding effect provided u/s.98 – Operation of – Appellant, private operator of non-air conditioned bus, was issued inter-State permit by State of Punjab – Appellant claimed counter-signatures on the said permit from the authority of Union Territory (U.T) of Chandigarh for operation of non-air conditioned bus in the said U.T. – Allowed by Single Judge – Division Bench overturned the said view holding that the appellant cannot operate its stage carriages beyond the territory of Punjab in view of the 1998 Scheme of the U.T. of Chandigarh framed under Chapter VI which excludes operation of private operators altogether – On appeal, held: Division Bench missed the crucial relevance and effect of the Reciprocal Agreement of 2008 contemplated u/s.88, Chapter V which specifically provides for counter signature for non-A.C. buses – There is no dispute that despite the Scheme of 1998, the appellant operated its stage carriage up to 2008 – Scheme is unilateral, whereas the Reciprocal Agreement is bilateral – Despite the availability of Scheme, the U.T of Chandigarh and the State of Punjab consciously entered into a Reciprocal Agreement permitting the non-A.C. buses, for which the State of Punjab had issued permits prior to 1966 and it continued to be renewed by the State of Punjab to operate in the Union Territory of Chandigarh – Unless the Reciprocal Agreement is superseded by a fresh agreement or unless there is a new scheme framed by the U.T of Chandigarh specifying the provisions to the contrary, the buses operated by the appellant, which had permits issued prior to 1.11.1966 and so long as they are renewed by the State of Punjab, the U.T of Chandigarh cannot refuse counter signature – Based on s.98, it was contended that Scheme framed under Chapter VI has overriding effect over the Reciprocal Agreement contemplated u/s.88 (Chapter V) – However, overriding effect provided in s.98 operates only in case of an inconsistency on a legal position – There is no such situation in the present case – On the contrary, the Reciprocal Agreement is on mutually beneficial terms – Impugned order passed by the Division Bench set aside – Order of Single Judge restored.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is no dispute that despite the Scheme of 1998, as amended in 2001, the appellant operated their stage carriage up to 2008. [Para 5] [461-G-H]
1.2 The Scheme is unilateral, whereas the reciprocal agreements are bilateral. Despite the availability of Scheme, the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the State of Punjab have consciously entered into a reciprocal agreement permitting the non-A.C. buses, for which the State of Punjab had issued permits prior to 1966 and it continued to be renewed by the State of Punjab to operate in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It has also come in the affidavit of the State of Punjab that such mileage has been taken into consideration for the mileage entitlement of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, in the reciprocal agreement which has come into effect on 04.06.2008. Therefore, unless the reciprocal agreement is superseded by a fresh agreement or unless there is a new scheme framed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh specifying the provisions to the contrary, the buses operated by the appellant, which had permits issued prior to 01.11.1966 and so long as they are renewed by the State of Punjab, the Union Territory of Chandigarh cannot refuse counter signature for the reason that the permits already issued in 1966 had outlived its life after five years of the reorganization. The overriding effect provided in Section 98 of the said Act operates only in case of an inconsistency on a legal position. There is no such situation in the present case. On the contrary, the reciprocal agreement is on mutually beneficial terms. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Division Bench is set aside and that of the Single Judge of the High Court is restored. [Paras 8, 9] [460-G-H; 461-A-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.