http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: THE SAMARTH TRANSPORT CO. (P) LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,NAGPUR AND OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/09/1960

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) KAPUR, J.L. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N.

CITATION:  1961 AIR   93            1961 SCR  (1) 631  CITATOR INFO :  R          1962 SC1135  (6)  RF         1963 SC 640  (12)  RF         1971 SC1662  (13)

ACT: Motor  Vehicles-Application  for renewal of  stage  carriage permits-Approval    of   Scheme   of   nationalisation    by Government--Application  refused  months  after  expiry   of Permits-Order, if without jurisdiction--Disposal, if must be made  within  reasonable  time-Duty  of  Regional  Transport Authority-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939), as  amended by Act 100 of 1956, ss. 57, 58, 62, 68F.

HEADNOTE: As the petitioner’s stage carriage permits were to expire on December  31,  1959, it made applications for a  renewal  of them 81 632 on August 24, 1959. on December 29, 1959, temporary  permits were granted to the petitioner for one month and  thereafter for  another,  made  available up to March  31,  196o.   The matter  was  adjourned from time to time and  ultimately  on April 28, 196o, the petitioner’s applications were  rejected on the ground that a scheme of nationalisation including the petitioner’s routes had in the meantime been approved by the Government on April 20, 196o.  The petitioner applied  under Art. 32 of the Constitution    for a writ quashing the  said order  and  the  scheme, on the  ground  that  the  Regional Transport Authority was actuated by mala fides and its  real purpose  in  granting  the adjournments was  to  enable  the Government  to  approve of the scheme, and for  a  direction that  the  petitioner’s applications for  renewal  might  be disposed  of according to law as on the date when they  were filed. Held, that the petition must fail. The  Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, does not prescribe  any  time limit  for  the disposal of an application  for  renewal  of permits  and it cannot be said that the  Regional  Transport

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

Authority in the instant case acted without jurisdiction  in rejecting  the applications even though months  had  elapsed after the permits had expired and notwithstanding that s. 62 permitted the issue of no more than one temporary permit. Even so, the relevant provisions of the Act indicate that an application  for renewal of a permit has to be  disposed  of ordinarily  before  the expiry of the permits  or  within  a reasonable time thereafter.  It was, therefore, open to  the petitioner,  if it was aggrieved by the delay, to ask for  a mandamus   directing  the  Authority  to  dispose   of   its applications within a reasonable time. Although  s. 68F(1) of the Act applies only where the  State Transport  Undertaking applies for a permit in pursuance  of an approved scheme, s. 68F(2) is not conditioned by any such limitation and the word ’entertain used by it does not refer to  an application filed for the renewal of a  permit  after the approval of the scheme.  That word does not connote  any time but describes the scope and duty under that clause  and only   means  that  the  Authority  cannot  dispose  of   an application on merits but can reject it as not  maintainable either at the time it is filed or thereafter. Statutory  bodies  are  in duty bound to  act  promptly  and efficiently and discharge their functions fairly and without bias  even where the Government is interested.  The  conduct of the Regional Transport Authority, in the instant case, in granting adjournments, not for the reasons they purported to be  but to enable the Government to approve of  the  scheme, must be disapproved.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 67/1960. Petition  under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  for enforcement of fundamental rights.                             633 A.   V.  Viswanatha  Sastri and B. B.  L. Iyengar,  for  the petitioners. C.   K.  Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, R.  Ganapathy Iyer and R. H.  Dhebar, for the respondents. 1960.  September 8. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by  A SUBBA RAO J.-This is a petition under Art. 32  of  the Constitution  to  quash the order of  the  first  respondent dated  April 28, 1960, and the scheme dated April 20,  1960, and  to  direct  the  first  respondent  to  deal  with  the application  of the petitioner for renewal of its permit  in accordance with law. The  petitioner  was doing business of  motor  transport  in Bombay State for over 20 years.  It had four permanent stage carriage  permits  granted some years ago and  renewed  from time to time to ply buses on the following routes: (i)  Yeotmal-Umerkhed...  2  return  trips. (ii) Yeotmal-Pusad...     4 return trips.  The  term  of the latest permits expired  on  December  31, 1959.  About four months prior to the expiry of the  permits the  petitioner applied on August 24, 1959, for the  renewal of  the  permits under s. 58(2) of the Motor  Vehicles  Act, 1939  (Act  IV of 1939), (hereinafter called the  Act).   On October  29, 1959, the State Transport Department  published its  proposed  scheme for the nationalization  of  the  road transport services in respect of an area which included  the routes  of  the  petitioner.   On  November  9,  1959,   the petitioner  wrote  a letter to the Secretary,  the  Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, asking him why its  application for  renewal  of  the stage carriage permits  had  not  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

published  as  required  by  s. 57  of  the  Act.   It  also expressed  its  apprehension that the  application  was  not published by the Regional Transport Authority with a view to assist the State Transport Department in ousting it from the said routes and that the Authority was creating a  situation in order to force the petitioner to accept temporary permits under  s.  62(d) of the Act-.  The Secretary,  the  Regional Transport 634 Authority, by his letter dated November 11, 1959, replied to the  effect  that  the  application  for  renewal  had  been published on November 8, 1959, and that the said application would  be  considered  before the expiry date  and  that  no question  of  issuing  temporary permits  would  arise.   On November  19,  1959,  the Assistant  Manager  of  the  State Transport  Department  on  behalf  of  the  State  Transport Department filed applications before the Regional  Transport Authority for issue of permits to it in respect of the  said two  routes among others.  It was mentioned therein that  as per  the  notification published in  the  Bombay  Government Gazette  dated  October 29, 1959, the  Provincial  Transport Services  proposed  to take over the aforesaid  routes  from January  1,  1960.  The Provincial Transport  Services  also filed  objections  against  the renewal of  the  permits  in favour  of the petitioner.  On December 10, 1959,  the  said applications  were  published  in the  Gazette  and  it  was notified  therein  that representations, if any,  should  be submitted on or before December 15, 1959, and that the  said objections along with the applications for permits would  be considered in a meeting to be held by the Regional Transport Authority in the month of December, 1959, at Nagpur or at  a later date which may be notified in due course.  On December 21, 1959, the Secretary of the Regional Transport  Authority intimated  to  the  petitioner that in the  meeting  of  the Regional  Transport  Authority  scheduled  to  be  held   on December 31, 1959, it would not be possible to consider  its applications  for  renewal due to " heavy agenda ".  It  was also  suggested  to it to apply for the grant  of  temporary permits  pending renewal in good time so that they could  be issued before the due date.  The petitioner on the same date replied  to  that letter wherein it pointed out that  "  the heavy agenda mentioned in your letter is, we hold, a  design to  cover  your  attempt  to  ad  Vance  the  cause  of  the Provincial  Transport  Services,  (U.   G.  O.),  Nagpur  ". Without  prejudice to its rights the petitioner applied  for temporary  permits as directed by the Authority On  December 29,  1959, temporary permits were issued for one month  from January 1, 635 1960,  and thereafter they were extended for  another  month and  made available upto March 31, 1960.  The ,next  meeting of the Regional Transport Authority scheduled to be held  on February 5, 1960, was adjourned to February 24, 1960, and on January  22,  1960,  the Chief  Minister  of  Bombay  issued notices to the petitioner and others that objections to  the proposed scheme would be heard on February 24, 1960; but  on the  said date the applications were not disposed of on  the ground  that the matter was sub judice in the High Court  of Bombay.   On  March  17,  1960,  the  Provincial   Transport Services  filed  a  fresh application  before  the  Regional Transport  Authority under Ch. IVA of the Act for the  grant of permits for plying buses on the routes mentioned therein. It was also brought to the notice of the Regional  Transport Authority that the Provincial Transport Services desired  to operate  tile  routes in question from May 1, 1960,  or  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

other  date  as  may  be fixed  by  the  Regional  Transport Authority.  Presumably, the second application was filed  as the  earlier  application was filed not under  Ch.   IV  but Under  Ch.   IVA  of the Act on the basis  of  the  proposed scheme.  On March 31, 1960, the Regional Transport Authority met again, but the applications for renewal of permits filed by  the petitioner were not taken up for consideration.   It is  suggested that as 30 days had not expired from the  date of  the  filing  of  the  applications  by  the   Provincial Transport  Services the petitioner’s applications could  not be-taken up for consideration.  On April 14, 1960, the Chief Minister  of  Bombay heard the objections and on  April  19, 1960, the scheme with modifications was duly approved by the Government  and published on April 20, 1960.   The  approved scheme covered only the routes in respect of which only tem- porary permits were issued and excluded the routes in regard to  which  pucca permits were issued.  The  approved  scheme included  the petitioner’s routes.  On April 20,  1960,  the applications  were  again adjourned to  April  29,1960.   On April 26, 1960, the petitioner moved this Court under Art.32 of the Constitution and on April 28, 1960, the petition  was dismissed as premature. 636 On the same day even though the Regional Transport Authority was informed that this Court was moved by the petitioner its renewal  applications were rejected on the ground  that  the scheme was approved by the Government.  The present petition was filed on April 29, 1960, for the aforesaid reliefs. The main contention of learned counsel, Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri,  for the petitioner, is that the Regional  Transport Authority was actuated by mala fides in the disposal of  the applications  for  renewal of the permits, and  that  though under the provisions of the Act it had no alternative but to renew the permits of the petitioner it adjourned the  matter from  time  to  time  with an  evil  design  to  enable  the Government  to  approve the scheme.  In that  situation,  he contends, the proper course is to set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and direct it to dispose of the petitioner’s  applications for renewal of permits as on  the date when they were filed. To  appreciate this argument it is necessary to notice  some of  the relevant provisions of the Act.  Under s. 58 of  the Act,  "  A  stage carriage permit  or  a  contract  carriage permit......... shall be effective without renewal for  such period,  not  less than three years and not more  than  five years,  as the Regional Transport Authority may  specify  in the permit ". Clause (2) provides for the renewal of permits on  application  made  and  disposed of as  if  it  were  an application  for  a  permit.   Section  57  prescribes   the procedure in the matter of the disposal of applications  for permits.    Section  57  (1)  enables  the  filing   of   an application for a permit at any time, and clause (2) of that section says that such an application shall be made not less than  six weeks before the date on which it is desired  that the permit shall take effect, and, under cl. (3) thereof, on receipt  of  such  an application for  permit  the  Regional Transport  Authority  shall publish the application  in  the prescribed manner calling for representations to be made  on a  date  not  being  less than 30  days  from  the  date  of publication.    After  hearing  the  said   objections   and representations,  the  applications will be disposed  of  in accordance with the provisions of 637 the   Act.   Section  62  enables  the  Regional   Transport Authority  to grant permits without following the  procedure

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

prescribed under s. 57 to be effective for a limited  period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorize the  use of  a transport vehicle temporarily pending decision  on  an application for the renewal of a permit.  The second proviso to  that  section states that a temporary permit  under  the said section shall, in no case, be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the  renewal  of  a  permit  during  the  pendency  of  such application  for  renewal.  Section 68F  enables  the  State Transport  Undertaking, in pursuance of an approved  scheme, to  apply  in the manner specified in Ch.  IV  for  a  stage carriage  permit in respect of a notified route and on  such an application the Regional Transport Authority shall  issue such  a  permit  to  the  said  Undertaking  notwithstanding anything  contained to the contrary in Ch.  IV.   Under  cl. (2) of that section, for the purpose of giving effect to the approved  scheme in respect of a notified area  or  notified route, the Regional Transport Authority may by order  refuse to  entertain any application for the renewal of  any  other permit, to cancel any existing permit or to modify the terms of   any  existing  permit.   Section  68G  prescribes   the principles and method of determining compensation in respect of the permits cancelled or modified. The  foregoing  provisions, so far relevant to  the  present enquiry,  may  be summarized thus: An operator  of  a  stage carriage  may apply for renewal of his permit not less  than 60 days before the date of its expiry; the said  application will  be  disposed  of as if it were an  application  for  a permit  and  he will be given  preferential  treatment,  the other conditions being equal; the Act does not prescribe any outer limit for disposal of the application for renewal of a permit, for its disposal would depend upon the  applications filed by others and the time required for complying with the conditions laid down in s. 57; but the requirement that  the application shall be filed not less than 60 days before  the date   of  the  expiry,  the  injunction  that  pending   an application for 638 renewal  of  a permit, temporary permit shall not  be  given more  than  once  and the time limit of four  months  for  a temporary permit fixed in s. 62 indicate that, though  there is no statutory prohibition, the application is expected  to be  disposed  of ordinarily before the term of  the,  permit expired   or,  in  case  of  unavoidable  delay,  within   a reasonable   time  thereafter;  after  a  scheme  has   been approved,  if the State Transport Undertaking applies for  a permit,  the  Regional Transport Authority shall  issue  the permit  to  it and for the purpose of giving effect  to  the approved  scheme the said Authority is authorized to  refuse to entertain an application for renewal of any other  permit or  cancel  or modify any existing permit; if  the  Regional Transport   Authority   cancels  or   modifies   a   permit, compensation is, payable to the operator affected. In  the  present case the permits expired  on  December  31, 1959.   The  petitioner filed applications  for  renewal  on August  24, 1959, and they were rejected on the ground  that there was an approved scheme on April 28, 1960.  On December 29,  1959, temporary permits were granted for one month  and after the expiry of those permits, another set of  temporary permits  was issued for another month ending with March  31, 1960.   It  is true that under the second proviso to  s.  62 temporary  permits  could not have been  granted  more  than once, but a transgression of that provision by the  Regional Transport Authority does not affect the question raised.  As the  provisions of the Act do not prescribe any  time  limit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

for  the disposal of an application for renewal of  permits, we  cannot hold that the Regional Transport Authority  acted without  jurisdiction  in rejecting  the  applications  some months  after  the date of the expiry of the  terms  of  the permits.  If there was any inordinate delay in the  disposal of an application, it was open to the affected party to  ask for  a  mandamus  to direct  the  appropriate  Authority  to dispose  of the petition within a reasonable time.   But  no such  step  was taken by the petitioner, though it  filed  a writ petition in the High Court for other reliefs. 639 The   next  question  is  whether  the  Regional   Transport Authority exceeded its power in rejecting the  applications. In  this context it will be convenient to read the  relevant portions of s. 68F, which read: Section 68F: "(1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State transport undertaking applies............... for a stage carriage permit the Regional Transport Authority shall issue     such    permit    to    the    State     transport undertaking................  (2) For the purpose  of  giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified  area or notified route, the Regional Transport Authority may,  by order,- (a)  refuse to entertain any application for the renewal  of any other permit." Learned  counsel  for the petitioner contends  that  s.  68F applies  only  when an application for permit is made  by  a State  Transport  Undertaking in pursuance  of  an  approved scheme  and that in the present case as the application  was filed  by the State Transport Undertaking before the  scheme was  approved,  the  provisions  of  the  section  were  not attracted.   It  is  true that under  s.  68F  the  Regional Transport  Authority is bound to issue a permit to  a  State Transport Undertaking only’ if it applies in pursuance of an approved scheme.  That is why in the present proceedings the Authority  did not issue any permit to the  State  Transport Undertaking; but sub-s. (2) of s. 68F is not conditioned  by any  such limitation.  The Regional Transport  Authority  is authorized  for the purpose of giving effect to an  approved scheme to refuse to entertain an application for renewal  of any  other  permit.   This power does not  depend  upon  the presentation  of  an  application  by  the  State  Transport Undertaking for a permit.  This power is exercisable when it is  brought to the notice of the Authority that there is  an approved  scheme and, to give effect to it, the  application for  renewal  cannot  be  entertained.   By  the  time   the application  for renewal came to be disposed of,  admittedly the scheme had been approved by the Government of Bombay and the  routes  in question were included in the  said  scheme. Therefore$ 82 640 the  Authority  was within its rights not to  entertain  the applications filed by the petitioner.  It is contended  that the  word " entertain " refers to an application  filed  for the  renewal of a permit after the scheme was  approved  and that  the said provision has no relevance to an  application for  renewal made before that  date. The word " entertain  " may mean " to receive on file or keep on file ", and in that sense the Authority may refuse to keep an application on its file by 1.   rejecting  it  either  at  the  time  it  is  filed  or thereafter.  It does not connote any time but only describes the  scope of the duty under that clause.  It can only  mean that  the  Authority cannot dispose of  the  application  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

merits  but  can reject it as not maintainable.   Any  other meaning  given to this word leads to an anomalous  position, for even if the approval of a scheme had been brought to the notice of the Regional Transport Authority, it would have to order the renewal of the permit and thereafter it would have to cancel the permit, presumably, on an application filed by the  State Transport Undertaking.  We do not think that  the legislature used the word " entertain " to bring about  that result.   A  wider meaning of the word " entertain  "  would enable  the smooth working of the provisions of the  section and  we  have  no  reason to  accept  the  narrower  meaning suggested by the learned counsel.  We, therefore, hold  that the  Regional Transport Authority had power under s.  68F(2) of  the Act in the circumstances of the case to  reject  the applications filed by the petitioner. The  next  contention  of the learned counsel  is  that  the scheme suffers from the vice of discrimination inasmuch  as, though  it  excluded the petitioner from  operating  on  the route between Yeotmal and Umerkhed, it allowed others to ply their  buses  on  that  route on their  way  from  Akola  to Umerkhed  or  Amravati to Umerkhed.  There is no  basis  for this  argument in the affidavit filed by the  petitioner  is support  of the writ petition.  We do not think that we  are justified  in allowing the petitioner to raise the plea  for the first time before us.  We do not, therefore, allow it to do so.                             641 Lastly  it is argued that the Chief Minister  confirmed  the scheme on extraneous considerations not covered by s. 68C of the  Act.  In paragraph 24 of his order the  Chief  Minister observed,  " On merits, it is quite clear to me that  having regard  to the resources of the P. T. S. and  the  amenities that it provides to the public, it is in the public interest that the scheme submitted by the P. T. S., Nagpur, should be approved  ".  Under  s.  68C the  question  that  arose  for consideration  before  the Chief Minister  was  whether  the transport  services  should be run by  the  State  Transport Under. taking to the exclusion of the petitioner and whether it  was necessary to do so in public interest to provide  an efficient,  adequate, economical and  properly  co-ordinated road  transport  service.  The Chief Minister found  on  the material  placed  before him that it was  necessary  in  the public interest that the scheme submitted by the  Provincial Transport  Services should be approved.  In support  of  his conclusion,  he took into consideration that the  Provincial Transport   Services  were  in  possession   of   sufficient resources and were in a better position to provide amenities to  the public and therefore in public interest they  should be given preference over the private operators of buses.  We cannot  say  that  the Chief Minister  took  any  extraneous circumstances   into   consideration  in  coming   to   that conclusion. The record in this case is not indicative of promptitude  or efficiency  in  the  matter of discharge  of  the  statutory functions by the Regional Transport Authority.  The  various dates, the reasons given for putting off the disposal of the petitions  for renewal from time to time and the timing  and the   manner  of  the  final  disposal  are  such   as   may legitimately  give rise to the allegation that the  Regional Transport  Authority  was not, to say the  least,  fair  and impartial  in  the  discharge of its  duties.   A  statutory tribunal  is expected to discharge its functions fairly  and without  bias  even  in a case where the  interests  of  the Government   are  involved.   Considering  the   facts   and circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the complaint

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

of the petitioner that the adjournments were not for the 642 reasons  mentioned in the orders but were only to give  time to  enable the Government to approve the scheme, may not  be wholly unjustified. In   the  circumstances,  though  we  are   dismissing   the application,   we  are  not  awarding  any  costs   to   the respondents. Petition dismissed.