http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: R.   OBLISWAMI NAIDU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ADDL.  STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MADRAS & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/02/1969

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. SIKRI, S.M. BACHAWAT, R.S.

CITATION:  1969 AIR 1130            1969 SCR  (3) 730  1969 SCC  (1) 733  CITATOR INFO :  R          1970 SC1542  (3,15,62,63)  E          1970 SC1704  (6)  E&D        1974 SC 391  (3,6)  R          1975 SC 386  (2)  R          1978 SC 949  (2)  E          1984 SC   9  (4)

ACT: Motor  Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), ss. 47  and  57-Application for  stage  carriage  permit on new  route-Procedure  to  be followed.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant applied to the R.T.A. for a permit to  ply  a stage carriage on a new route on which no stage carriage was plying  before.  The R.T.A. published the application  under s.   57(3)   of  the  Motor  Vehicles   Act,   1939.    Some representations  against the grant of the  permit  on  the ground  that there was no need were received.   The  R.T.A., after  overruling the objections granted the permit  to  the appellant.  The appeal by some of the objectors was  allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the  procedure adopted by the R.T.A. was not  in  accordance with law inasmuch as it failed’ to determine the question of the  need for a service in that ’route  before  entertaining the  application.  The appellate order was confirmed by  the High Court. In appeal to this Court, HELD : (Dismissing the appeal) Having regard to the  purpose behind  ss. 47 and 57, that only public interest  should  be considered  and any manipulation in favour of  a  particular applicant   should  be  eliminated,  there  should  be   two independent steps before granting a stage carriage permit  : (a) there should be a determination by the R.T.A., under  s. 47(3),  of the number of stage carriages for  which  permits may  be  granted  on that route, and  (b)  applications  for permits  for  such  number  of  stage  carriages  should  be entertained thereafter.  Otherwise, the R.T.A. will ’have no opportunity to choose between competing operators.  The ’re- presentations’  made under s. 57(3) cannot be considered  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

competing   applications.   Further,  if   ’representations’ should  be  interpreted to include applications’.  then  s. 57(3)   becomes  unworkable  as  there  will   be   unending applications and publications. [733 B-C, F, H] Jaya  Ram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam, C.A.  No.  95/65 dated 27-10-1967, followed.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1426  of 1968. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated April 16, 1968  of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 908 of 1968. D.   Narsaraju Subramaniam, Vineet Kumar, J. Ramamurthy,  P. S. Khera and Shyamala Pappu, for the appellant. S.T.  Desai, A. R. Ramanathan and R. Gopalakrishnan,  for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. The scope of s. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 939 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) comes up  for consideration in this appeal by certificate. 731 The facts of the case necessary for the purpose of  deciding the point in issue are few, and they are as follows :- On August 8, 1966, the appellant applied to the R.T.A. Coim- batore  for  a permit to ply a stage carriage on  the  route Bhavani  to Vellithiruppur.  That was entirely a new  route. No  stage  carriage was plying on that route at  that  time. The R.T.A. published that application under s. 57(3) of  the Act.   Respondents Nos. 2-3 and others made  representations against  that application contending that there was no  need to grant a stage carriage permit for that route.  The R.T.A. overruled  their objection and granted the permit asked  for on October 9, 1967.  As against the order of the R.T.A. some of  the objectors went up in appeal to the  State  Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras.  The Additional State  Transport Appellate  Tribunal  allowed  the appeal  by  its  order  of February 22, 1968 holding that the procedure adopted by  the R.T.A.  was  not in accordance with law inasmuch as  it  had failed  to determine the question of the-need for a  service in  that  route before entertaining the  application  for  a stage carriage permit.’ The Tribunal held that the procedure adopted by the R.T.A. contravened s. 47(3) of the Act.   The appellant  challenged  that order before the High  Court  of Madras  in  Writ Petition No. 908 of 1968.  The  High  Court dismissed that application.  Hence this appeal. Section 47 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be adopted by the R.T.A. in considering applications for stage carriage permit.  That section reads :               "A  Regional  Transport  Authority  shall,  in               considering   an  application  for   a   stage               carriage permit, have regard to the  following               matters namely :               (a)   the interests of the public generally;               (b)   the  advantages  to the  public  of  the               service  to be provided, including the  saving               of time likely to be effected thereby and  any               convenience  arising from journeys  not  being               broken;               (c)   the   adequacy   of   other    passenger               transport  services  operating  or  likely  to               operate in the near future, whether by road or               other means, between the, places to be served;               (d)   the  benefit to any particular  locality

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             or  localities  likely to be afforded  by  the               service;               (e)   the operation by the applicant of  other               transport services, including those in respect               of which applications from him for permits-are               pending;               (f)   the  condition of the roads included  in               the proposed route or area;               732               and  shall  also take into  consideration  any               representations   made  by   persons   already               providing  passenger transport  facilities  by               any means along or near the proposed route  or               area,  or  by  any  association   representing               persons  interested in the provision  of  road               transport facilities recognised in this behalf               by  the  State  Government, or  by  any  local               authority  or  police authority  within  whose               jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or               area lies               Provided that other conditions being equal, an               application for a stage carriage permit from a               co-operative  society registered or deemed  to               have  been registered under any  enactment  in               force for the time being shall, as far as  may               be  given  preference over  applications  from               individual owners.               (2)   A  Regional  Transport  Authority  shall               refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if  it               appears from any time-table furnished that the               provisions  of this Act relating to the  speed               at which vehicles may be driven are likely  to               be contravened :               Provided  that before such refusal  an  oppor-               tunity  shall  be given to  the  applicant  to               amend  the time-table so as to conform to  the               said provisions.               (3)   A  Regional  Transport  Authority   may,               having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-               s.  (1), limit the number of  stage  carriages               generally  or of any specified type for  which               stage  carriage permits may be granted in  the               region  or  in any specified area  or  on  any               specified route within the region." Sub-section  (3) of s. 47 of the Act required  the  Regional Transport  Authority to limit the number of  stage  carriage permits that may be granted in a route having regard to  the matters  mentioned  in  sub-s. (1)  of  that  section.   The question  for determination is whether the determination  as to the number of stage carriages required on a route  should be  done  at  a  stage  anterior  to  that  of  entertaining applications for stage carriage permits or that it could  be done at the time it considers applications made by operators for  stage carriage permits in that route.  The  R.T.A.  has proceeded  on the basis that question can be  decided  while considering  the  applications  made to it  for  permits  by operators whereas the Appellate Tribunal and the High  Court have taken a contrary view. Sub-s.  (3) of s. 47 of the Act if read by itself  does  not throw  any light on the controversy before us but if ss.  47 and  57 of the Act are read together it appears to us to  be clear that the view 733 taken  by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court  is  the correct  view. if contrary view is taken it will throw  open

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

the  door  for  manipulations and nepotism.   There  may  be possibility of the personality of the applicant  influencing the  decision  of the R.T.A. on the question of need  for  a stage  carriage  permit  in the  route  and  thereby  public interest which should be the main consideration while taking a decision under s. 47(3) may suffer.  If we accept the view taken  by the R.T.A. as correct, an operator who happens  to apply for the route first will be in a commanding  position. The  R.T.A.  will  have no  opportunity  to  choose  between competing operators and hence public interest might suffer. Mr.  Narsaraju, learned Counsel for the appellant  tried  to meet  the difficulty by suggesting that sub-s. (3) of s.  57 of  the Act is wide enough to allow the competing  operators to   apply  for  the  route  in  question  when  the   first applicant’s  application  is published  and  representations called for.’ Section 57(3) reads               "On  receipt  of an application  for  a  stage               carriage permit or a public carrier’s  permit,               the  Regional Transport Authority  shall  make               the  application available for  inspection  at               the office of the Authority and shall  publish               the  application or the substance  thereof  in               the  prescribed manner together with a  notice               of  the date before which  representations  in               connection therewith may be submitted and  the               date,  not being less than 30 days  from  such               publication, on which, and the time and  place               at    which,   the   application    and    any               representation received will be considered."               (Proviso  is  not  relevant  for  our  present               purpose). We  are unable to accept this contention.  That  sub-section merely permits representations to be made in respect of  the application published.  Such representations cannot take the form  of competing applications.  It is difficult to  accept the  contention that the word "representations" in s.  57(3) includes  applications  for  the route.  That  apart  if  we accept Mr. Narsaraju’s contention then the whole thing  will become   unworkable.    If  at  the  time  of   making   his representation an operator can also make an application  for a  stage  carriage permit for that route,  that  application again  will  have  to  be  published  under  s.  57(3)   and objections   called  for.   Extending  the  logic   of   Mr. Narsaraju’s  argument as we ought to, at the time of  making representations to those applications, further  applications can be made.  This may turn out to be an unending chain. On an examination of the relevant provisions of the Act  and the  purpose  behind ss. 47, and 57, we are  convinced  that before  granting  a stage carriage  permit  two  independent steps   have   to  be  taken.   Firstly   there   should   a determination by the R.T.A. under Sup./69-12 734 s.47(3)of  the number of stage carriages for which  stage carriage  permits may be granted in that route.   Thereafter applications for stage carriage permits in that route should be entertained.  The R.T.A. is not competent to grant  stage carnage permits for more carriages than fixed under s.47(3). Our above conclusion accords with the view expressed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1965. (M/s.  Jaya Ram  Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam and ors.) (1).  Therein the Court observed :               "The  scheme of sec. 47 is that when a  person               makes an application under sections 45 and  46               the Authority first considers it under sec. 47

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

             (  1  ) in the light of the  matters  set  out               therein and also the representations, if  any,               made  by the persons mentioned  therein.   The               Authority then fixed under sec. 47 (2), having               regard  to the matters mentioned in s.  47(1),               the  number  of  stage  carriages  for   which               permits may be granted in the region or on any               specified  route within such  region.   Having               fixed the limit the Authority publishes  under               s.  57(3)the application with a notice of  the               date    before   which   representations    in               connection therewith may be submitted and  the               date    on   which   such   application    and               representations  would  be  considered.    The               proviso to s.57(3) lays down that if the grant               of  a permit has the effect of increasing  the               number of vehicles operating in that region or               in any specified area thereof or on the  route               within  such  region beyond  the  limit  fixed               under s. 47 (3), the Authority may dismiss the               application summarily.  If it does dot  exceed               such limit and the Authority decides to  grant               a  permit it has to consider  the  application               and  the  representations submitted to  it  in               conformity  with  the procedure laid  down  in               sec.  57.   Therefore sec.  47  envisages  two               stages  of the inquiry; (i) the fixing of  the               number  of permit under s. 47(3) and (ii)  the               consideration  thereafter of  the  application               for grant of a permit and the  representations               if  any by the persons mentioned in s.  47(1).               It   would  therefore  seem  that   once   the               Authority has fixed the number of vehicles  to               be  operated in the region or the area or  the               particular route and the number of permits  to               be  granted  therefore, the stage  of  inquiry               under s. 47 (3) is over.  The next thing  that               the Authority has to consider is whether grant               of a permit would be within such limit or not.               If it does not exceed the limit the  Authority               has  to  consider  the  application  and   the               representation if any, in connection therewith               and  to grant or refuse to  grant  the  permit               under sec. 48(1).. Therefore, once the               C.A. No. 95/65 decided on 27-10-1967.               735               limit   is   fixed,,  if  the  grant   of   an               application  does  not  have  the  effect   of               exceeding that limit, the only question before               the  Authority would be whether the  applicant               is  a person fit to be granted the  permit  or               not  in  the light of the matters set  out  in               sub-sec. (1) of sec. 47.  The question of  the               number  of permits to be granted, having  been               already  canvassed and decided, cannot  become               the  subject  at  that stage  of  any  further               controversy.  This is clear from the fact that               sec.  48(1)  which empowers the  Authority  to               grant  or  refuse to grant the  permit  starts               with  the words ’subject to the provisions  of               s.  47’.   It  is  therefore  clear  that  the               Authority has first to fix the limit and after               having  done so, consider the  application  or               representations  in  connection  therewith  in               accordance  with  the procedure laid  down  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

             sec.  57.   As  held in Abdul  Mateen  v.  Ram               Kailash Pandey(1) the Authority may modify the               limit  fixed by it under sec. 47 (3) but  once               such  a  limit is fixed, it cannot  ignore  it               while  considering the applications before  it               under sec. 48.  Sec. 47(3), as observed there,               ’is  concerned with a general  order  limiting               stage   carriages,   generally  etc.,   on   a               consideration  of  matters  specified  in   s.               47(1).  That general order can be modified  by               the  Regional  Transport Authority, if  it  so               decides,  one  way  or  the  other.   But  the               modification of that order is not a matter for               consideration  when  the  Regional   Transport               Authority is dealing with the actual grant  of               permits  under  s. 48 read with s. 57  for  at               that   stage  what  the   Regional   Transport               Authority  has  to  do is  to  choose  between               various  applicants.... That, in our  opinion,               is  not  the  stage, when  the  general  order               passed under section 47(3) can be reconsidered               for  the order under s. 48 is subject  to  the               provisions of s. 47, which includes s. 47 (3 )               under  which  a  general  order  limiting  the               number  of stage carriages etc. may have  been                             passed.’               That  being so, if an application  is  refused               such  refusal  is under sec. 4 8 (1)  and  the               appellant who is denied the permit has a right               of appeal under sec. 64(1) (a)."               In  the result this appeal fails and the  same               is dismissed with cost V.P.S.                     Appeal dismissed. 735 (1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 523, 529.