All-India tourist permits may be applied for directly; old endorsement-based rules cannot add prerequisites the statute does not contain.

Section 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 created a direct statutory regime for all-India tourist permits, so an applicant was not required to first hold a contract carriage permit capable of endorsement. Rule 3 of the Orissa Tourist Vehicles Rules, 1967, framed for an earlier endorsement-based system, could not restrict the fresh statutory power to grant all-India tourist permits. Applications left blank in columns relevant only to existing permit holders were not incomplete where the applicants were fresh applicants, and could not be rejected on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an applicant for an all-India tourist permit under Section 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was required to hold a pre-existing contract carriage permit capable of endorsement; (ii) Whether Rule 3 of the Orissa Tourist Vehicles Rules, 1967 applied to applications for all-India tourist permits after the introduction of Section 63(7); (iii) Whether the applications submitted by the appellants were incomplete because some columns were left blank.

Issue (i): Whether an applicant for an all-India tourist permit under Section 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was required to hold a pre-existing contract carriage permit capable of endorsement.

Analysis: Section 63(7) created a distinct class of permit to be granted by the State Transport Authority for operation throughout India. The provision required an application to be made to the State Transport Authority and did not say that the applicant must first obtain an ordinary contract carriage permit and then seek endorsement. Reading such a prerequisite into the section would rewrite the provision and defeat the statutory scheme intended to facilitate tourist traffic.

Conclusion: The requirement of a prior contract carriage permit was not a condition precedent, and the appellants were eligible to apply directly for all-India tourist permits.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 3 of the Orissa Tourist Vehicles Rules, 1967 applied to applications for all-India tourist permits after the introduction of Section 63(7).

Analysis: Rule 3 was framed before the statutory introduction of the all-India tourist permit regime and dealt with endorsement of existing permits. It was made for a legal setting in which wider operation was achieved by endorsement of an existing permit. After Section 63(7) introduced a fresh statutory mechanism for grant of an all-India tourist permit without endorsement, the rule could not control or restrict that substantive statutory power.

Conclusion: Rule 3 had no application to the appellants' applications for all-India tourist permits.

Issue (iii): Whether the applications submitted by the appellants were incomplete because some columns were left blank.

Analysis: The advertisement issued by the State Transport Authority provided forms for both existing permit holders and first-time applicants. For fresh applicants, some columns relevant only to existing contract carriage permits could not be filled in. The blanks were therefore not material defects and did not make the applications incomplete.

Conclusion: The applications were complete in substance and could not be rejected on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme authorised direct grant of all-India tourist permits to eligible applicants, and the adverse view taken by the High Court could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a direct power to grant a permit for all-India operation, subordinate rules framed for endorsement of pre-existing permits cannot be used to impose a prerequisite that the statute does not contain.

---