http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE.AMRAVATI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/1968

BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SHAH, J.C. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1969 AIR  329            1969 SCR  (1) 808  CITATOR INFO :  E          1970 SC 769  (5)

ACT: Motor  Vehicles  Act  (4 of 1939),  ss.  48(1),  57(7)   and 58(1)-Order   granting   permit-Period   of   validity   not mentioned--Effect  of.-Date of commencement  not  mentioned- Effect of. Practice-Filling up date in earlier order-If review. If order granting  permit can be  oral-Obligation  to   give reasons immediately. Writ  under Art. 226-Conduct of party when  precludes  issue of.

HEADNOTE: On   May  10,  1965,  the  R.T.A.,  after  considering   the applications  by  the respondents  (private  operators)  for renewal  of  their  permits  and  the  application  by   the appellant for a fresh grant of permits, for the same routes, passed  orders dismissing the. applications for renewal  and granting  substantive permits to the appellant.   The  order was  challenged by the private operators in  writ  petitions and  the High Court directed that, pending the  disposal  of the  writ  petitions,  status quo should  be  maintained  by :granting  temporary  permits  to  the  private   operators. Thereafter,  while  ’the writ petitions  were  pending,  the appellant   and   the  private  operators  filed   a   joint application  of  compromise before the R.T.A. by  which  the private  operators  agreed to withdraw the  writ  petitions. The R.T.A.., on September 11, 19’65, upon such assurance and after  hearing  the parties, directed  that  the  appellant, which was granted substantive permits by order dated May 10, 1965,  would commence operation on the routes  described  in Schedule  A  to the order from November 1,  1965,  that  the private  operators  would operate on  temporary  permits  on routes  mentioned in Schedule B till June 30. 1967 and  that the appellant would commence operation on those routes  from July  1,  1967.   With regard to  the  routes  mentioned  in Schedule C, the private operators agreed to surrender  their permits in favour of the appellant but, as the appellant had not  made  any  application for  those  routes,  the  R.T.A. decided  to  call for applications as provided  for  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Motor  Vehicles Act, 1939.  On October 8, 1965  the  private operators  withdrew  the writ petitions, and  thereupon  the R.T.A., on October 15, 1965, announced The decision taken on September 11, 1965, and thereafter, invited applications for the routes mentioned in Schedule C   The appellant made  its application.   The private operators also applied, but  they applied not only for permits for C Schedule routes, but also in  respect  of the B Schedule routes.  On  April  5,  1967, permits  were  issued to the appellant in respect of  the  B Schedule  routes  as per the-orders dated May 10,  1965  and September 11, 1965, for a period of 5 years commencing  from July  1, 1967;  At its meeting on June 29, 1967, the  R.T.A. passed  resolutions in the presence of the parties  granting substantive  permits in respect of Schedule C routes to  the appellant,   and  rejecting  the  applications  of   private operators.   The  minutes  of  the  meeting  were   formally recorded  in a letter of July 20, 1967, detailed reasons  in support  of  the  order  were  given,  and  the  letter  was communicated to the private operators.  The order dated June 29, 809 1967  was  challenged  by the  private  operators  in  write petitions and the High Court allowed the petitions  quashing the  grant  of  permits  to  the  appellant  on  the  routes described in Schedules B and C. In  appeal to this Court, on the questions: (1) whether  the order of the R.T.A. dated May 10, 1965, was invalid because, (a)  the period of validity of the permit was not  expressly mentioned,  and  (b) the order did not mention the  date  of commencement  of the period of the permit; (2)  whether  the order  of  the R.T.A. dated September 11, 1965,  fixing  the date  of commencement of the service was  invalid,  because, the  order was a review of the order dated May 10, 1965  and the  R.T.A.  had no power of review; (3) whether  the  order dated September 11, 1965, was invalid because it was  passed during  the  subsistence of the interim order  of  the  High Court maintaining status quo; (4) whether in  view of  their conduct,  it was not open to the private operators to  apply for  a  writ  for quashing the order  of  the  R.T.A.  dated September 11. 1965; and (5) whether the order of the  R.T.A. dated  June  29, 1967, was invalid, because, the  order  was oral  and no reasons were given by the  R.T.,A.  immediately for the order. HELD:  (1)  (a) There is no statutory requirement  that  the R.T.A. should expressly mention in its order granting permit under  s.  48(1) the period for which the permit was  to  be granted.   The order of  the R.T.A. should be  construed  in the language of s. 48(1 ) which empowers the R.T.A. to grant a stage carriage permit ’in accordance with the application’ or  ’with such modifications as it deems fit’.  As  required by  r. 80 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, the  appellant mentioned 5 years as the period for which the permit was  to be granted.  Since the R.T.A. did not make any  modification it  must be deemed that the grant was made for 5  years,  in accordance with the application.  Therefore, the order dated May  10, 1965 could not be held illegal on the  ground  that the period was not expressly mentioned. [815 H; 816 B-E] (b)  There is nothing in the Act or in the Rules to  suggest that  the  R.T.A. is under an obligation to mention  in  the order  of  grant of permit the actual date  from  which  the permit was  to be  effective.  Under s. 48(3)(i) of the Act, the  R.T.A.  may specify as a condition that  service  shall commence   from  a  specified  date.   But  it   is   merely permissible  and does nor apply to the order of grant  of  a permit  which is dealt with in s. 48(1).  In the absence  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

any  express statutory provision it. must be taken that  the date  of the commencement of the period of the permit  would be  the date from which it was actually issued.   Therefore, the  order of the R.T.A. was not invalid, because, the  date of commencement was not mentioned. [816 F-H] Shree Laxmi Bus Transport Co. v. The R.T.A. Rajkot, 62  Bom. L.R. 958, referred to. (2)  It is not correct to say that the order of  the  R.T.A. dated   September  11. 1965, was an order of review  of  the previous  order dated May 10, 1965.  The later order of  the R.T.A.,  fixing the date of commencement of the service  was only supplemental and filled up an omission in the  previous order which was left intact. [817 E-F] (3)  The order of the R.T.A. dated September 11, 1965 was  a conditional one which was intended to come into effect  only after the writ petitions in the High Court were withdrawn by the  private operators, and it was in fact  announced  after the  petitions  were  withdrawn.   Therefore,  there  is  no violation of the interim  order  of the High Court. [818  B- C] 810 (4)  The private operators were parties to the  order  dated September 11, 1965, had accepted that order, acted upon  it, and  derived benefits and advantages from it for nearly  one year and nine months.  In those circumstances there was such acquiescence  in  the  order on the  part  off  the  private operators  as to disentitle them to a grant of a writ  under Art. 226 of the Constitution. [818 D-E, G-H] Moon  Mills  Ltd. v.M.R. Meher,  A.I.R.  1967   S.C.   1450, 1454, followed. (5)  There  is no provision either in the Act or  the  Rules which requires either expressly or by necessary implication, that the. R.T.A. should give a written decision with  regard to  the grant of a stage carriage permit or to give  reasons therefor along with the written decision.  Therefore, in the absence  of any statutory provision, there is nothing  wrong in principle if an administrative tribunal gives a  decision orally   and  subsequently reduces to  writing  the  reasons therefor and communicates it to the parties. [823 G; 827  D- E] Procedure in English law referred to. Bhagat  Raja  v. Union of India, [1967] 3  S.C.R.  302   and Prag   Das Umar Vaishya v. Union of India, C.A. No.  657  of 1967, dated August 17, 2967, held inapplicable.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 825 851  of 1968. Appeals from the’ judgment and order dated  October  19, 20, 1967 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench in Special Civil Applications  Nos.  575 to 596, 634, 540 and 570 to  572  of 1967 respectively. C.K.  Daphtary,  Attorney-General, Santosh  Chatterjee   and D.P. Singh, for the appellant (in all the appeals). M.N.  Phadke,  C.G.  Madholkar and A.  G.  Ratnaparkhi,  for respondent No. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 832, 840, 842, 844 and 847’ to 851 of 1968). M.N.  Phadke, M.W. Puranik and Naunit Lal,  for   respondent No. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 825 to 831 and 833 to 838 of 1968). R.V.S. Mani, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 845 of 1968). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. These appeals are brought by certificate  from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated October 20, 1967

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

in  Special Civil Applications Nos. 540, 570 to 572, 575  to 596  and  634 of 1967 filed under Arts. 226 and 227  of  the Constitution of India. The appellant is the State Road Transport Corporation of the State  of Maharashtra constituted under the  Road  Transport Corporation  Act  (64 of 1950).  Respondent No. 1 who  is  a private 811 stage   carriage  operator  alongwith  other  such   private operators, had applied for renewal of stage carriage permits which they were holding and which permits were to expire  on March  31,   1961. The Provincial  Transport  Services  (the predecessor  of the appellant) had been also  operating  the stage  carriage service in  the adjoining and  nearby  areas and  had  made applications sometime in  January,  1961  for grant  of  substantive  permits for the  same  routes.   The Provincial  Transport  Services  had   published   a  scheme under  s. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1939  (hereinafter called  the  ’Act’)  under which it proposed  to  take  over several routes in the region including the routes in respect of which renewal applications were made by the appellant and the private operators.  The scheme was approved by the Chief Minister  of  the  then Bombay  State.   The  approval  was, however,  challenged by private operators in  Special  Civil Application No. 86 of 1962 in the High Court.  By its  order dated  29/30th  August, 1963 passed in that case,  the  High Court quashed the scheme with the direction that the  matter should  be  reconsidered by the  approving  authority.   The scheme was thereafter not pursued. By  a notification dated June 10, 1961 under s. 47A  of  the Road   Transport  Corporation  Act  of  1950   the   Central Government provided for the amalgamation of the Bombay  Road Transport Corporation with the Commercial Undertaking of the State  Government namely the Provincial Transport  Services. It   was  also  provided  in  the  notification   that   any application  for  permit made by  the  Provincial  Transport Services  would be deemed to. be an application made by  the Bombay  Road  Transport Corporation.  In  other  words,  the Provincial   Transport   Services  was  substituted  by  the State  Road  Transport  Corporation which is  now  known  as Maharashtra  State Road Transport  Corporation  (hereinafter referred to as the ’appellant’). The applications for renewal of permits and applications for substantive   permits  were  considered  by   the   Regional Transport   Authority,   Nagpur  (hereinafter   called   the ’R.T.A.’) on October 9 and 10, 1964 and the R.T.A. passed  a common order by which all the applications for renewal  made by  private  operators were rejected and  the  permits  were granted  to  the  appellant.  This order of the  R.T.A.  was challenged  by  the  private  operators  in  Special   Civil Application  No. 603 of 1964.  One of the grounds  on  which the order was challenged was that the R.T.A. was not validly constituted.  By its order dated January 14, 1965,  the High Court  quashed the order passed by the R.T.A., holding  that it  was not properly constituted on October 13,  1964   when it passed the common order.  Thereafter the applications for renewal of permits and for fresh grant of permits were again considered  by  the R.T.A. at its meeting held  on  May  10, 1965.   By its order on the same date, the R.T.A.  dismissed all the applications 812 for  renewal  made by the private operators   and   directed that substantive permits for these routes should  be granted to   the appellant.  The order of the R.T.A. dated  May  10, 1965  was challenged by the private operators  in  different

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

Civil  Applications.  One of the  applications  was  Special Civil Application No. 488 of 1965.  In this application, one of  the prayers was to the effect that pending the  decision of the application the R.T.A. should be directed to maintain status  quo.   Clause 3 of the prayer was to  the  following effect:               "That pending the decision of this application               the  R.T.A.  Nagpur be  directed  to  maintain               status quo viz., to grant temporary permit  to               the   petitioner as it has been done upto  now               on  the  routes  Chikhli-Buldana  and  Chikhli               Deulgaonraja   on  which  the  petitioner   is               operating his vehicles."               On  June  4,  1965  Paranipe,  J.  ordered  as               follows:               "Rule.   Expedite hearing at Nagpur  on  21-6-               1965.   In  the  meantime  R.T.A.  Nagpur   to               maintain status quo in terms of Clause 3." The  interim  order was subsequently confirmed by  the  High Court  and  all  the petitions were  directed  to  be  heard together. During the pendency of the Special Civil Applications in the High Court an application was made to the R.T.A. jointly  on behalf of the appellant and the private operators.  A  ’copy of  that  application  is included as  document  no.  17  in Special  Civil  Application  No.  575.0  1967.   The   joint application  stated  that  the  appellant  and  the  private operators, with a view to end all litigation, had agreed  to settle the matter on certain terms. One  the terms was  that the Special Civil applications filed were to. be  withdrawn. The application for compromise was considered by the  R.T.A. at  its  meeting  held on September 10  and  11,  1965.  The private  operators  including respondent No. 1  assured  the R.T.A.  that they would withdraw the petitions   pending  in the High Court.  Upon ’such assurance the R.T.A.  considered the  matter  at the meeting and after  hearing  the  parties decided  that  the  appellant who  was  granted  substantive permits  by  its order dated May 10,  1965,  would  commence operation on the routes described in Sch. ’A’ from  November 1, 1965.  In regard to the routes mentioned in Sch. ’B’  for which  also  the  appellant  had  been  granted  substantive permits by the order of  the  R.T.A. dated May 10, 1965, the appellant  was to be permitted to coramence  operation  from July 1, 1965 and the private operators including  respondent No.  1  were  to be allowed to operate on  these  routes  on temporary permits until June 30, 1967.  This interval