Summary
The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s ruling permitting the appellant to obtain Chandigarh countersignatures for qualifying non-air-conditioned stage-carriage permits under the 2008 reciprocal agreement with Punjab. The agreement expressly accommodated private operators with permits issued before 1 November 1966, subject to verification and the specified legal conditions. Section 98’s overriding effect arose only upon inconsistency, which the Court found absent here. The arrangement remained operative pending a superseding agreement or contrary new scheme, while Punjab continued renewing the qualifying permits. Consequential action was directed within four weeks.
Issues
- Whether the 1998 scheme, as amended in 2001, defeated the qualifying operator’s rights under the 2008 reciprocal agreement.
- Whether Chapter VI’s overriding clause required refusal of countersignature despite that agreement.
Provisions considered
- Section 98, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The Chapter VI override applied where inconsistency existed. The Court found no such conflict in the operative arrangement and rejected reliance on the provision to defeat the mutually agreed treatment of qualifying permits. (¶¶ 6, 8)
- Section 88(5)–(6), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The published reciprocal-agreement mechanism required the concerned transport authorities to give effect to the agreement. The Court applied the 2008 provision concerning qualifying pre-reorganisation non-AC permits. (¶¶ 4, 7–8)
Held
- The High Court Division Bench overlooked the 2008 agreement’s express accommodation of private non-AC buses with permits issued before 1 November 1966, subject to verification, countersignature and the stated statutory conditions. The older scheme alone did not dispose of that later agreement. (¶ 3–4)
- Punjab and Chandigarh had consciously entered the bilateral arrangement despite the existing scheme, and the corresponding mileage had been accounted for in Chandigarh’s entitlement. Section 98 did not displace it without legal inconsistency. (¶ 6–8)
- Until a superseding agreement or a new Chandigarh scheme specifying contrary provisions, countersignature could not be refused on the stated ground that the original permits expired five years after reorganisation, where qualifying pre-1 November 1966 permits continued to be renewed by Punjab. The ruling did not create unrestricted access for all private non-AC operators. (¶¶ 4, 8)
- The Division Bench order was set aside and the Single Judge’s order restored. The appeal was disposed of with consequential action required within four weeks and no order as to costs. (¶ 9–12)
Result
Division Bench order set aside and Single Judge’s order restored. Consequential action directed within four weeks; appeal disposed of without costs.