S. KANNAN & OTHERS ETC. v. SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 740

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: D.A. DESAI, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY

Case summary

134 A of the Constitution as in its view a substantial question of law of general importance, namely, whether. 63 (7) of the Act filed writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka, By a common · Judgment the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, inier...

Judgment text

40 S. KANNAN & OTHERS ETC. v. ' " SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY August 29, 1983 1 [D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ. J Motor Ve/tic/es Act, 1939-Sec. 63(7)-Al/ lndia Tourist Permit. Sec. 62 -Interpretation of. Sec. 62 does not co1nprehend power to gfant te1nporary. all India Tourist Permit-Expression Regional Transport Authofity in Sec. 62 does ·not comprehend State Transport Authority. Sec. 62(1) does not provide for grant Oftemporary permits pending grant ofa regular permit. · In order to promote tourism, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act for . short) was ameded in 1970 and sub-sec. (7) was inserted in s. ()3 empowering the State Transport Authority in each state to grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as May be specified by the Central Government. The Central ,Governmerit specified that every State Transport Authority may grant such permit not exceeding 50 in number.

The State Transport AuthorHy of Karnataka issued 36 such permits and there were 14 vacancies. Sev1~ral persons applied for temporary a. II India tourist permits to the State Transport Authority. The State Transport. Autho~ rity rejected the applications. On appeal the State Transport Appellate Tribunal purporting to exercise power under· s. 62 of the Act granted tempo· rary all India tourist permits. On writ petitions filed by some of the holders of regular permits under s. 63(7) the High Court quashed and set aside the decision Of the State Transport 1\. ppellate Tribunal. The appellants a·nd the petitioners who had obtained or "1ere desirous of obtaining temporary all India tourist permits challenged the correctness of the decision of the High Court. ! - The appellants urged: (1) that the Regional Transport Authority can grant temporary all-India tourist permits for the reasons mentioned in sec.

62; (2) that the State Transport Authority of Karnataka can grant temporary permits for the vacancies till regular all-India tourist permits were granted; (3) that in view of the provisions of sec. 44(3), the expression Regional Transport Authority would either comprehend State Transport Authority or would not atleast exclude tlfe power conferred on the lower authority to be enjoyed by the higher B:uthority; (4) that as far as the State of Karnataka was concerned, on the. issue of notification under sub-sec, (2A) of sec. 45 the expression •Regional Transport Authority' in sec. 62 will ~lso comprehend State Transport Al.! thority, and, (5) that th~ expression 'such permit' in sec. 63(7)_ could only . meailrC8ular or all India tourist permit and the temporary all India tourist permit was not to be catered to by sec. 63(7) but by sec. 62 and therefore sec. 62 was ri8htiy omitte. d from the array of sections set out in sec. 63(7). .

, Dismissing the appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions, i. KAMNAN '· Ji. l. ll. T. A. HELD : There is no powcr to 1mit' temporary all India touri. st pmllit under sec. 62. [757 E] An Authority having jurisdiction over a ~omparatively sma1l ar~ is 'favourably placed to notice a situation as contemplated by sec. 62. "Therefore, sec. 62 confers power on the Regional Transport Authority, the jurisdiction_of which extends over a region which is u'ually a small part of the State to gr-ant temporary permits to operate vehicles for a Short period to meet ·some tempo~ rary or emergency requirement or pending the renewal of an already granted permit. There is intrinsic evidence in the laneuage of sec. 62 that this power was meant to be used by Regional Transport Authority for dealing with a situation within its small area. If Regio?

al Transport Authority is not competent to grant regular all India tourist permit, rio canon of construction Would permit the Court to cloth• μim with power to arant temporary all India. tourist permit. ·[752 A·D] The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation· v. The RtWionaJ Transport Authority, Raipur, [1965] 3 S. C. R. 786 rofcrred to. Section 62(1)(9) does not pi"ovide for grant of temporary permits pendin& erant of a regular permit. On the contrary the first proviso to sec. 62(1) makes what is imPiicit in cl. (d) explicit by providina that a temporary permit under sec. 62 shall, in no case, be granted· in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant of a new permit under sec. 46 or sec. 54 during the pendency of the application. It may DC recalled that sec. 46 provide~ f9r an application for a stage Carriaec and sec. 54 provides for an application for public carrier's permit.

Therefore, in no· case a temporary pormit can be granted under the section pendina arant of or renewal ot contract carriage· permit. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 62, h~wever, carves out a. μ exception where a temporary contract carriage permit can be granted in_ respect of any route or area where no permit could be issued by reason of an order ~f the court or, other competent authority restrainina. the issue of t_he same. That is not the case here. Therefore, there is no power to grant a temporary contract carriage permit and ipso facto ·th• temporary all India tourist permit und~r r sec. 62. [753 D·G] ... Sec. 44(3) merely provides that a State Transport Authority can perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority Where ihere is no such '. A.. ~thority or where, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more· tcgions.

In the instant case none of these conditions ·under which a State Transport ) Authority can perforn1 the functions and djschargc the duties of a Regional Transport Authority arc satisfied, and therefore, H is difficult to accept the submission that the expression 'Regional Transport Authority' used in sec. 62 will comprehend State Transport Authority. EVen if in its appliCa'. tio'n, the Act with its local amendment to the Sta~eo of Karnataka sec. 62 would enable the State Transport Authority to· issue a temporary permit this would hardly make any difference because the power t9 grant temporary permit under sec. 62 in the circumstances and eventualities therein mentioned would not comprehe! 'd • 74~ SliPREMll COURT REPORTS (1983) 3S. C.

R· the power to grant temporary all India tourist permit because none of the conditiona under which the same can be granted would be attracted and the :state , ) Transport Authority ·will have no material for satisfaction of one or the other conditions set out in sec. 62 ·which would ellable it to grant such a permit. There· is no express provision in· the Act which provides ·that the State Transport Authority can always and without any fetter enjoy the power of the Regional Transport AU. thority and in the absence of such provision it is difficult , to read ~erely on the basis of vertical hierarchy wherever the lower authority is mentioned in the statute, the higher authority be included therein. [752 E·H]; 753 A·B] The whole concept of granting temporary all lndia tourist permit is foreign to the concept of all India tourist permit.

An all India touris permit is none-the-less a ~ontract carriage permit but while contract carriage permit can be granted for any vehicle not required to be specially adapted _for the purpose, a contract carr. iage perm·it for all India operation as envisaged by sec. 63(7) can only be granted in respect of tourist vehicle·, and it appears that it requires a substantial financial inv:estment for adapting a vehicle as a tourist vehicle. This intrinsic evidence shows that such huge or heavy outlay cannot be imposed on an applicant by giving him temporary all lndia tourist permit which can if at all be granted for-a period extending 4 months. [756 E·G] If sec. 62 were to be a proviso to sec. 63(7) and therefore, one can conceive of granting a temporary all India tourist permit for meeting a particular temporary need, it is difficult to envisag_e a partieular need of an all India variant which can be noticed by State .

Transport Authority of one State and ) such authority can proceed s_ide-tracking all relevant provisions to grant temporary all India tourist permit. [756 H; 757 A] _, ORIGINAL JURISDICTioN: Writ Petitions Nos. 7897-7901, 8077- 86, 8115-34, 7969·78, 4591-4598 of 1983, 788-92, 1360, 2225, 2365- 67 of 1982, 7924-52,. 8049-50, 7963-68, 8087·92, 8093-97, 8137-69 5824, 5818, 5233, 4578, 4577, 4574, 4576, 8047·48 of 1983, 7490-92/ 82, 3560, 5625, 5830, 6074-75, 6083-90, 6098-6101, 6102·29, 6180-88, 7046-47, 7495, 7613-14 7622·26, 7656-60, 7663-68, 7670-82, 8003, 8005, 8006, 4583, 8434·40, 8427-33, 5356-64, 7618-21, 7655, 8391·93, 3326, 3939, 6133-79 of 1983, 9347, 7800 and 9803 of 1982. (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India). WITH _Civil Appeal No. 31-34 of 1981. Appeals from the judgment and Ord'er dated the 18th December, 1980 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 21090 and 21339 of 1980. AND . Civil Appeals Nos.

173S·06 of 1981 Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and Order dated the 19th May, 1981 of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal Nos. 643 and 644 of 1980. AND Special Leave Petition No. 2275 of 1~82. From the Proceedings dated 6th October, 198 l 6f the Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority Bangalore, in Subject No. 165_ of 1981. For the Appearing Parties : K. K. Venugopa/, R. B. Datar & Ms. Madhu Moo/ Chandani, . K. N. Bhatt, A. T. M. Sampath, P. N. Rama/ingam, B. P. Singh, S. S. Java/i, N. K. Sharma, Jfarbans . Lal, R. N. Poddar, N. S: Das Bahl, V. G. Mehta, V. K. Verma, P. R. Mridul; Vineet Kumar, C. S. Vaidyanathan, N. Nettar, B. R. L. Iyengar, P. R. Ramasesh, P. K. Pillai, R. P. Bhatt, Swaraj Kaushal, M. Veerappa and A. K.. Sharma. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J.

Appellants and petitioners in_ this group of appeals and special leave petition and writ petitions are persons who have obtained or were desirous of obtainin& temporary tourist permits valid for the whole of India styled as 'All India Tourist Permit'. The chronology of events leading to the appeals and writ peti· tions may be briefly stated. Sub·sec. (7) was inserted in Sec. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act for short) ·with effect from 'October I, 1970 empowering State Transport Authority in each State, for the purpose . of promoting tourism, to grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India, in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as the Central Government may, in respect of that State, specify in this behalf. The Central Government specified that the State Transport . Authority in each State may grant permit as 744 SUPREME COURT RllPORTS (1983) 3 s. c. R. contemplated by Sec. 63 (7) not exceeding 50 in number.

Armed with this power, the State Transport Anthority of ' ~rnataka State in all granted 36 such permits. There were thus· 14 vacancies. It appears that several persons applied for temporary all India tourist permits to the State Transport· Authority of• Karnataka State. These applications for the permits were rejected and some of the applicants who were respondent Nos. 3 to II in the writ petition in the High Court and who are appellants in this Court preferr~d appeals to State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appellate tribunal purporting to exercise power under Sec. 62 of the Act granted temporary all India tourist permits io them. Some of the holders of regular permits granted under sec. 63 (7) of the Act filed writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka, By a common · Judgment the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, inier alia, on the ground that the grant of a permit under Sec.

63 (7) must be in accordance with the provisions of the various sections set out therein which does not include Sec. 62 under which alone temporary permit can be granted and therefore, grant of te~1· porary permits for tourist vehicles of all India . operat;on is not . permissible. Accordingly, a writ ofcertiorary was issued, quashing and setting aside the decision of the State Transport Appellate Authority. On the request of the present appellants, the High Court ) · granted a certificate under Art. 134 A of the Constitution as in its view a substantial question of law of general importance, namely, whether. a temporary permit can be granted in respect of a tourist vehicle for all India operation, does arise and further in its· opinion the question needs to he decided by the s·upreme Court. Hence some appeals by certificate.

Following the decision of the High Court, large number of ' appeals pending before the State Transport Appellate Authority were dismissed and the appellants whose appeals were dismissed have approached this Court under Art. 136 of the Con·stitution. Further large number of writ petitions have been filed under Art. 32 of fhe Constitution questioning the c. orrectness of the decision of various transport authorities refusing to . grant temporary . all India tourist permits and praying for a writ of mandamus directing the State ·' Transport Authority of . various States to grant such permits. A further prayer in some of the writ petitions is to the. effect that that part of sub sec. (7) Qf,! l,ec. 63 which enables the Central Government to prescribe a quota for each State in respect of all India tourist permits, is violative of the Constitution and must be declared uncon· stitutional. s. KANNAN v. l! i. S. R. T. A (Desai, I.

) 745 As common questions have been raised in the appeals, special leave petitions and the writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment• . The narrow and the only question that was canvassed before us is : whether there is power in any of the Transport Authorities as enumerated in Sec. 44 of the Act to grant temporary all India tourist permits ? In other words, whether the power conferred by Sec. 62 of the Act enabling the. Regional Transport Authority without following the procedure laid down in ·Sec. 57, to grant temporary permit as therein envisaged would comprehend the power to grant temporary all India tourist permits ? We must frankly confess that thi~ neat . C question of Jaw is none too easy of. answer and much can be said in support of rival contentions. At the outset, Jet it be made distinctly clear that there is no nomenclature as regular or permanent alL India tourist permit. Sec.

63 (7) has specilied a permit that can be graμted by the State Trans- I) port Authority of any State, subject to the quota fixed by. the Central Government valid for the whole, or any part of India. In other words, such a permit would enable the permit holder to undertake an all India operation which for brevity's sake ma)' be described as all India tourist permit. Sec. 63 (7) speaks of such permit which may· be granted after complying with the various sections of the Act therein set out. Such permits when granted may be styled as regular all India tourist permit in contra~istinction to what the appellants and _the petitioners seek as temporary all I. ndia tourist permit. A brief resume of the reievant provisions of the. Act may shed lighi on the controversy raised before us. Expression. 'contract carriage' is defined in Sec.

2 (3) to mean a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum etc. 'Stage carriage' is defined in Sec. 2 (29) to mean a motor vehicle carrying or ~dapted to carry morn than six persons excluding the driver which. carries passengers for hire or reward at se. parate fares paid by· or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey. E•pression )ourist vehicle' is defined in Sec. 2(29 A) to mean a contract carriage ·constructed or. adapted and equipped and maintained in accordance with . such specifications as the State Government inay, by not1ficat1on m the Official_ Gazette, specify in this behalf. The defini- .. , tion of 'tourist vehicle' was introduced by Amending Act 56 of 1969 by which Sec. 63 '(7) was also introduced. Chapter IV bears the · heading 'Control of Transport Vehicles'. Sec.

42 prohibits owner of transport vehiclti to use the same in the public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under the relevant provisions of the A• It may lie recalled that transport vehicle includes goods vehicle as weU as passenger vehicle. Thus no passenger vehicles can be used in any public place without a permit.. Sec. 44 requires the State Government to constitute various transport . authorities in each State s1~cli as State Transport Authority, to· exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub-sec. (3) as also Regional Transport Authority to exercise and discharge throughout such areas referred to as regions, as may be specified in C· ·the notification, powers and functions conferred on ·such authority. It would appear that a State Transport Authority is to be constituted for the whole . State. The State is to be divided into variou·s regions and a Regional Transport Authority has to be constituted for one or more of such regions.

Th - Sec. 63 (7) is the root question? · The High Court in this connection observed that "since sub· section (6) of Sec.. 63 has provided for grant of special permits for all India operation of contract carriages, it is reasonable to infer that · the omission to mention Sec. 62 in the latter part of sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 63 was deliberate and that the legislature did not intend grant of temporary permits for tourist vehicles for all India operation. " This view is assailed on behalf of the appellants and the writ · petitioners. · It was contended 'that as an elaborate procedure is prescribed for grant of stage carriage permit or contract carriage permit and that it bein$ a prolix and time-consuming process, Sec.

62 keeping in ·view the urgent or emergent need to provide transport facilities to travelling public, conferred power on Regional Transport Authority • to grant temporary permit to meet a particular temporary need or for purposes of seasonal business or pending decision of an application for the renewal of a permit. It was urged that if either a· stage carriage or coutrac_t carriage permit can . be granted by a Regional Transport Authority to meet a particular temporary need or pending decision of an application for the renewal of a permit, the Regional Transport Authority can as well . grant temporary all India tourist permit for the self same reasons. There are two fallacies m the submissions on behalf of the c· appellants and the writ petitioners. Sec. 62 confers power on the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit. A Regio· nal Transport Authority is set up for a region.

The jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority extends over a region which is usually a small part of the State because for the purposes of the Act State has to be divided into regions-. Power to grant temporary permit iS conferred on Regional Transport Authority, amongst others, meet a particular temporary need. Regional Transport Authority . -· having jurisdiction over a comparatively small area may be able to gauge, notice or appreciate a particular temporary need for which temporary permit can be granted for a period not exceeding 4 months without following the procedure prescribed in Sec. 57. The same power can- be enjoyed pending the renewal of an already granted permit. By its very nature Sec.

62 caters to a situation where permits to operate vehicles may be granted for a short period to meet some temporary or emergency requirement or where time is likely to be spent iu processing an application for renewal of a permit and in tlie interregnum the travelling public may not be put to inconvenience on sccount of non·availability of vehicles with permits. (See. The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. The Regional 1 Transport Authority, Raipur). ( ) An au(hority having jurisdiction over a comparatively small area is favourably placed to notice situation as contemplated by Sec. 62. Therefore, the power is conferred on Regional Transport Authority and not the State Transport Authority to grant temporary permit in the circumstances set out in Sec. 62, because State Transport Authority has jurisdiction over the whole State, and the State Transport Authority exercising the power under Sec. 63 (7) will have to have &n all India perspective. (I) [196513 S. C,R, 786.

Therefore, the statute did not confer such power on State Transport Authority because by its very nature the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over a comparatively smaller area would be better equipped to appreciate and deal with the needs. of the travelling public of a temporary character or pending the renewal of a permit. There is intrinsic evidence in the language of· Sec. 62 that it was meant to be used by Regional Transport Authority for dealing with a situation within its small area. If Regional Transport Authority is not competent to grant regular all India tourist permit, no canon of construction would permit the Court to clothe him wit)l . power to grant temporary all India tourist permit. Even if the dictum that the power to grant final relief inheres the power to grant interim relfof can be extended to executive authority, yet when .

the Regional Transport Authority has no power to grant regular all India tourist permit, it would be impossible to hold that such a1,1thority has none the Jess the power to grant temporary all lndia tourist permit. Tbere· fore, tho very language of Sec. 62 on which the f(igh Court ·substan· tially relied in Support of its Col)clusion WOUid be sujjicient to negative the contention canvassed on behalf of the appellants and the petitioners. It was, how~ver, mged that Sec. 44 (3) contemplates a situation where a State. Transport Authority has to perform the duties of Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, the expression 'Regional Transport Authority' in Sec. 62 would either comprehend State Transport Authority or would not at! east exclude the power conferred on the lower authority to be enjoyed by the higher authority. Sec. 44 (3) would not render any help in this behalf because ,_ it merely provides that .

a State Transport Authority can perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority or where, if it thiuks fit or if so required l)y a llegioual Transport Authority, to perform those duties iu respect of any route common to two or more regions. None of these conditions under which State Transport Authority can perforlll the functions and discharge the duties of a Regional Transport Authority are satisfied, ;nd there· · fore, it is difficult to accept the submission that the expression ':Regional Transport Authority' used in Sec. 62 will comprehend State Trans· port Authority. It is equally not possible to accept the submission that when a power is conferred on a lower authority that power can always be enjoyed by the authority higher in the hierarchy in reJatioi;i to the lower authority• There is no express provision in the statute )Vhich provides that tl\• State Transport Authority can.

always an - Relying on these amendments it was nrged that as far as the State of Karnataka is concerned on the issue of a notification under. sub-sec (2A) of Sec 45 the expression 'Regional Transport Authority' in Sec. 62 will also comprehend State Transport Authority and therefore, the submission of the appellants and the petitioners cannot be nega- . tived on the ground that only Regional Transport Authority is · empowered to issue temporary permits. Though no notification as required under sub-sec. (2A) of Sec. 45 vras brought to our notice we are prepared to proceed on the assumption that such a notifica• tion has been issued. But even if in the application of the Motor Vehicles Act to the State of Karnataka, Sec. 62 would also enable R State Transport Authority to issue temporary permit, it can only be ~one in. the circu! lJstances and eventualiti~s mentioned in that §. KANNAN '· K. s. it. T. A. (IJesai, J. ) 755 section. It will be presently pointed out that power to grant tem.

· porary permit under Sec. 62 in the circumstances and eventualities therein mentioned would not comprehend the power to grant temporary all India tourist permit because none of the conditions under which the same can be granted would be. attracted and State Transport Authority of a State will have no material for satisfaction of one or the other condition set out in Sec. 62 which would enable ·r it to grant such a permit. Therefore, this amendment would hardly make any difference in the outcome of the matter. It was urged that the High Court was ·in error in attaching importance to the omission of Sec. 62 from array of sections subject to which an application for an all India tourist permit has to be processed which according to the High Court clearly manifests the legislative intention that there was no question of granting under any . circumstances temporary all India tourist permit. It was contended that omission of Sec.

62 is quite logical because if it was placed amongst the array of sections subject to which applications for all India tourist permit have to be processed, it . would have become incongruous. Proceeding along this line it was submitted that Sec. 63 (7) provides that 'such permit' as contemplated· by Sec. 63 (7) will be granted in accordance with the various provisions set out therein, the expression 'such permit' can only mean regular or all India tourist permit and the temporary all India tourist permit was not to ·be ·catered to by Sec. 63 (7) but by Sec. 62 and therefore it was rightly omitted from the array of sections set out in sec. 63 (7J. If one were to conclude from the mere omission of Sec. 62 from amongst the array of sections subject to which an application for permit under sec. 63 (7) will have .

to be processed that no temporary all India tourist permit can be granted, there would have been some force in the submission on behalf" of the appellants and the writ petitioners. But we would presently point that th,e whole concept of granting temporary all India tourist permit is foreign to the concept of all India tourist permit ! Ind that this conclusion gets reinforced by the omission of Sec. 62 from the array of various sections subject to to which a ·permit under Sec. 63 (7) can be granted. Sub·seetion (7) was introduced in Sec. 63 in 1970. The object underlying the introduction of sub-sec. (71 becomes manifest from the language used therein. Till the introduction of sub-sec. (7), the situation was that the Regional Transport Authority can grant con·· tract carriage permit valid for the area under its jurisdiction or when counter-signed by the State Transport Authority of the other State tllen the vehicle can be operated in that other State.

Now with a view to promoting tourism, it was decided to clothe State Transport Authority with power to issue a permit which without the necessity of obtaining counter~signature ofother Transport Authority of other State valid for operating the veh. icle throughout the length and breadth of the country. With a view to ·providing uninterrupted flow of tourist traffic, thereby expanding tourist facilities which would pro- . ,mote tourism in the country, a contract carriage permit with all India operation was conceived and power was conferred on the State Transport Authority subject to the quota prescribed by the Central Government for eacli State to grant such permit. Every State had the prescribed quota and we were informed that at preseht each State has a quota of 50 permits. Within the quota, State Transport . Authority in each State can grant a contract ·carriage permit in respect of a tourist vehicle for all India operation.

A contract carriage permit can as well be granted under Sec. 51 in respect of a vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire. or reward under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for. a fixed or agreed ·rate or sum etc. Any ordinary vehicle. meeting the requirements of law can be operated under a contract carriage permit granted under Sec. 51. But when it conies to granting of a contract carriage permit available for all India operation, it has to be in respect of a tourist vehicle. Tourist vehicle has been defined to mean a contract carriage constructed or adapted attd equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications as the State Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. We were told that some special arrangements for comfortable journey over long distances has to be provided in a )tourist vehicle.

What is the djstinction 7 An all India tourist permit is none-the-Jess a contract carri~ge permit but while contract carriage permit can be granted for any vehicle not required to be specially adapted for the purpose, a contract carriage permit for all India operation as envisaged by Sec. 63 (7) can only be granted fo respect of tourist vehicle, and it appears that it ·requires a substantial financial investment for· adapting a vehicle as a tourist vehicle. This intrinsic evidence shows that such huge or heavy outlay cannot,be imposed on an applicant by giving him ·temporary alflndia tourist permit which cannot be granted for a period extending 4 months. If Sec. 62 were to be a proviso to Sec. .. 63 (7) ·~nd therefore, ')'· one can conceive of granting a temporary all India tourist permit for meeting a particular temporary need, it . is difficult to envisage a particular temporary need of an all India variant which can be s. KANNAN v. K. S. R. T. A.

(Desai,},) 757 noticed by State Transport Authority of one State and such authority can proceed side-tracking all relevant provisions to grant temporary all India tourist permit. Can there conceivably be a particular temporary need felt throughout India at the same time ?. If the answer is in the affirmative, all the States can grant tempotaty permits. 'Thero will be more vehicles and Jess travellers. Further a State Transport Authority of one State may believe that there exists a particular temporary need but the view of the other State Transport Authority can be e_xactly to the· contrary, and State Transport Authority of one State can open the flood-gates of temporary permits permitting tourist vehicles to invade other States.

It may be that a particular temporary need may arise in one State but that can be catered to by the Regional 'transport Authority of the region or the State Transport Authority of the State giving direction to Regional ___, 'transport Authority to grant contract carriage permit under Sec. 51. It is not necessary to have recourse to Sec. 63 (7) in such a situation, and if one St. ate cannot cater to the particular all India need, other States having their own quota can fill in the bill. Having thus examined the whole concept . Qf all India tourist per. mi! , the question of granting of a tourist permit to cater to a particular temporary need appears to be foreign to the very concept of all India tourist permit.

For this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court was perfectly justified in reaching the conclusion that there is no power to grant temporary all India tourist permit and the High Court rightly set aside the decision of the State Transport Appellate Authority. No case is therefore, made out for interfering with the same. Accordingly all these appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions fail and each of which is dismissed with costs where appearance has been entered into on the other side. All interim orders are vacated. H. L. C. Appeals and petitions dismissed. ).