Accrued right to permit renewal survived repeal and had to be decided under the earlier motor vehicle law.

A timely renewal application for a motor vehicle permit filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was held to survive the commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court applied Section 217 of the 1988 Act with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and held that the saving provisions were not exhaustive. A renewal application duly filed and notified under Section 58(2) of the 1939 Act created an accrued civil right to have the claim processed under the repealed law. The absence of a similar preference clause in Section 81 of the 1988 Act did not extinguish pending renewal claims. The renewal had to be considered under the 1939 Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for renewal of a motor vehicle permit filed under the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 survived the commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and remained entitled to be considered under the earlier law.

Analysis: The saving effect of the repeal had to be determined from Section 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 217(4) preserved the general application of the saving rule under Section 6, and the existence of an express saving in Section 217(2) did not make the provision exhaustive. Under Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a renewal application filed in time and notified under the statutory process created a legally enforceable preference in favour of the existing permit holder. That right was not merely inchoate but an accrued civil right to have the renewal application processed and decided according to the repealed Act. The absence of a preference clause in Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 did not evince an intention to destroy pending renewal claims already set in motion under the old Act.

Conclusion: The renewal application survived repeal and had to be considered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The rejection by the High Court was erroneous and the appellant succeeded.

---