http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: IKRAM KHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/08/1976

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.

CITATION:  1976 AIR 2333            1977 SCR  (1) 459  1976 SCC  (4)   1

ACT:             Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939--Sec.  47--Rajasthan   Motor         Vehicles Rules, 1951 Rule 108(c)--Whether considerations  in         Sec.  47 for grant of stage permits to be mentioned  in  the         order.

HEADNOTE:             The  appellant and respondents No. 3 and 4  applied  for         the  grant   of nontemporary stage  carriage  permits.   The         Regional  Transport  Authority granted the  permits  to  the         appellant and respondent No. 4 and rejected the  application         of  respondent No. 3.  Respondent No. 3 filed an  appeal  to         the  State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal.   The  notice  of         appeal was served upon the appellant where the date and time         were  mentioned but the place was not mentioned.  Since  the         appellant did not appear the appeal was heard ex-parte.  The         Tribunal set aside the order of the Transport Authority  and         granted the  permit  in  favour  of respondent No. 3. A writ         petition  filed  by the appellant against the order  of  the         Tribunal was dismissed summarily by the learned Single Judge         by  a  long speaking order. A Division Bench  dismissed  the         appeal filed by the appellant.         In an appeal by Special Leave the appellant contended:                    1.  The notice as required by rule 108(c) of  the                  Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 served on  the                  appellant  was not proper notice since it  did  not                  mention the place of the hearing of the appeal.                    2.  The  Tribunal did not consider  the  relevant                  matters as mentioned in section 47(a) to (f).         HELD:  1.  The omission to mention the place is  not  fatal.         The appellant is a resident of Jaipur where also the  office         of the Tribunal is situated. He was a Stage Carriage  permit         holder and not a stranger to the Transport authorities.   In         fact,  hearing of the appeal was adjourned twice even  after         the date mentioned in the notice.  [460 F]             2.  The Regional Transport Authority did not  make   any         reference   to the relevant considerations under section  47         of  the Act.  The Tribunal on the other hand has  considered         various  aspects  of the matter as required  by  section  47         although  without a reference to that section. The  Tribunal         and  the  learned  Single Judge duly  considered  the  whole         matter  and  the Division Bench was justified  in  summarily

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       rejecting the special appeal.  [461 B--D]

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 874 of 1975.             Appeal  by  Special Leave from the  Judgment  and  Order         dated  5-3-75  of  the Rajasthan High Court  in  D.B.  Civil         Appeal No. 18 of 1975.             M.C. Bhandare, S.M. Jain, S.K. Jain and Mohd. Fasiuddin,         for the Appellant.                  P.C. Bhartari, for Respondent No. 3.                  K.J. John, for Respondent No. 4.                  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             GOSWAMI,  J.--The appellant and the respondents 3 and  4         were   the  former  existing  stage-carriage  operators   of         Jaipur-Sainthal route which was nationalised on January  25,         1973.   All of them applied for the grant  of  non-temporary         stage carriage permits of Jaipur-Padampura route as alterna-         tive  route  permits.   The  Regional  Transport  Authority,         Jaipur  (briefly  the RTA) by it’s order of July  22,  1974,         granted nontemporary permits to the appellant and respondent         No.  4  and rejected the application of  respondent  No.  3.         That  led  to  an appeal to the  State  Transport  AppeLlate         Tribunal at Jaipur, Rajasthan, by respondent         460         No.  3.  The notice of appeal was served upon the  appellant         but  since he did not appear the appeal was  heard  ex-parte         and  by its order dated December 17, 1974, the State  Trans-         port  Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the RTA  and         granted  the  permit  in favour of respondent  No.  3.   The         appellant filed a writ application under Article 226 of  the         Constitution before the Rajasthan High Court and the learned         single  Judge by a rather long speaking order dismissed  the         same  summarily.  A further appeal by the appellant  to  the         Division Bench met with the same fate.  The High Court  also         refused to grant certificate to appeal to this Court.  Hence         this appeal by special leave.             Mr.  Bhandare,  the  learned counsel on  behalf  of  the         appellant,  submits  that the order of the  State  Transport         Appellate  Tribunal (briefly the Tribunal) is invalid  inas-         much  as  the appeal was heard in the absence  of  a  proper         notice  of  appeal as required under the law. He  draws  our         attention  to  rule 108(c) of the Rajasthan  Motor  Vehicles         Rules. 1951, which reads as follows :---                        "Upon  receipt  of  an  appeal  preferred  in                  accordance with sub-rule (b) the Appellate Tribunal                  may appoint a  date, time and place for hearing  of                  the  Appeal, giving the State Transport  Authority,                  or  the Regional Transport Authority, as  the  case                  may  be,  and the appellant. not less  than  thirty                  days notice thereof".         Although  the above rule does not contain any provision  for         service of notice on the respondent, it is, however, implic-         it that a notice similar     to one intended under the  rule         for  service  on the appellant must also be  served  on  the         respondent.  Mr.  Bhandare  could not  dispute  the  factual         service of notice on the appellant in view of the Tribunal’s         finding.  He  however,  submits that the  notice  which  was         served  on  the appellant did not recite the place  for  the         hearing of the appeal although the date and time were  noted         therein.  It  is true that the Tribunal could not,  in  law,         hear the appeal without intimating the respondent. about the         date, time and place for hearing of the appeal but since the         appellant had received the notice from the Tribunal indicat-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       ing  the date and time for hearing of the appeal, the  omis-         sion in the notice to describe the place where the appeal is         to be heard is not fatal enough to make the appeal  proceed-         ing invalid before the Tribunal.  The appellant, admittedly,         is a resident of Jaipur where also the office of the  Tribu-         nal is situated.  He was also a stage carriage permit-holder         and  not a stranger to the office of the Transport  Authori-         ties.  Besides, although the notice of the appeal fixed  the         date of hearing on October 8, 1974, the appeal was adjourned         on  that day to October 21, 1974 and again to  November  12,         1974  and  it was only on December 12, 1974 that  the  final         hearing  of the appeal took place.  It is, therefore,  clear         that  the appellant was duly notified about the  hearing  of         the appeal and in view of the fact that he did not make  any         effort  to  be present during this entire period,  when  the         appeal  was pending, he could not be allowed to take  advan-         tage  of  the mere omission of the place of hearing  of  the         appeal  in  the  notice.  Besides, the RTA  was  present  as         provided for under section 64(1) of the Motor Vehicles  Act,         1939 (briefly the Act) before the Tribunal to defend its own         order.  The submission of the appellant is, therefore, of no         avail.         461             Mr.  Bhandare next submits that the Tribunal  failed  to         comply with section 47 of the Act and did not at all consid-         er the relevant matters (a) to (f) provided therein.  It  is         well settled that in considering an application for a  stage         carriage  permit  the RTA shall have regard to  the  matters         described in section 47.  Before we go to consider about the         submission  of  the learned counsel with  reference  to  the         order  of  the Tribunal it is manifest, on the face  of  the         order  of  the RTA, that  Authority, even at the  first  in-         stance, did not make any reference to the relevant consider-         ations  under section 47 of the Act.  The only reason  given         by the RTA in rejecting the application of respondent No.  3         is  that "there is no other vacancy".  There is  nothing  to         show that the case of respondent No. 3 was at all considered         by  the RTA on merits. The Tribunal, on the other hand,  has         considered various aspects of the matter although without  a         reference to section 47 as such.  For example, the condition         of  the vehicles of the two parties was duly  considered  by         the  Tribunal.  The fact that the respondent 3 had  a  later         model of vehicle being 1965 model whereas the appellant  had         only  a 1962 model vehicle tilted the balance in  favour  of         the  respondent  No.  3. This aspect can  well  arise  under         clauses (a) and (b) of section 47. We are unable to say that         the  relevant considerations under section 47, on the  facts         and  circumstances  of the grant of the  particular  permit,         were  not  kept in view by the Tribunal in  considering  the         appeal.   The  Tribunal and the learned  single  Judge  duly         considered  the  whole  matter and the  Division  Bench  was         justified  in  summarily rejecting the special  appeal.  The         second submission of the learned counsel also fails.             In  the result the appeal is dismissed but we will  make         no order as to costs.         P.H.P.                                    Appeal dismissed.         462