Permit countersignature renewal follows the rule-based authority that renews the permit; another transport authority lacked competence.

Where the Motor Vehicles Act made the permit scheme subject to prescribed rules, the renewal of a countersignature on an inter-regional stage carriage permit had to follow the authority allocated by those rules. Rules 61 to 63 linked renewal of the countersignature to the Regional Transport Authority that renewed the permit, and the Court treated the word "may" in rule 63 as mandatory in that context. The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur therefore lacked competence to renew the countersignature; that power vested in the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. The renewal order was illegal and was rightly quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur had jurisdiction to renew the countersignature on the renewed inter-regional stage carriage permit, or whether that power vested in the Regional Transport Authority that renewed the permit under the applicable rules.

Analysis: The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provided for grant and renewal of permits and, by section 63, required countersignature for validity outside the original region, but made the chapter subject to rules prescribed under section 68. Under Rules 61, 62 and 63 of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, renewal of countersignature was linked to the authority renewing the permit, and rule 62 was expressly subject to rule 63. The opening words of section 63(1), read with the rules, showed that the rule-making power could modify the ordinary statutory scheme. The Court held that the word "may" in rule 63 was obligatory in the context, because the rule vested the renewal of countersignature in the authority renewing the permit.

Conclusion: The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur had no competence to renew the countersignature; that power belonged to the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. The order renewing the countersignature was illegal and rightly quashed, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent statute expressly makes the scheme subject to prescribed rules, and the rules vest the relevant power in a particular authority, that authority alone can exercise the power and the statutory word "may" may be construed as mandatory to effectuate the legal right.

---