http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: ABDUL REHMAN AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/03/1978

BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1978 AIR  949            1978 SCR  (2) 453  1978 SCC  (2) 674

ACT: Constitution  of India, 1950, Art. 226-Jurisdiction  of  the High  Court interfere under Art. 226 with the orders of  the transport authorities in the grant of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Motor vehicles Act, 1939, Section 47-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: While  considering the applications including those  of  the appellants for grant of additional stage carriage permit on- the Meerut-Mawana Miranpur route which was increased from 11 of 15 in 1959, the Regional Transport Authority,  purporting to  exercise  its authority of grant of  the  permits  under section  48 read with section 57 of the Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939,  modified  the  limit, of  number  of  stage  carriage permits  by increasing it to 20 against the settled  law  or the   subject,  and  disallowed  the  applications  of   the appellants  as  well as the representations of  Fakir  Chand Gupta and others.  Against this order Fakir Chand Gupta, and a  few  others including Harish Chandra Misra  preferred  an appeal  to  the State Transport Appellate  Tribunal,  which, following the decision of this Court in [1963] 3 SCR 523, by its order dated November 26,1963 set aside the order of  the Regional Transport Authority and remanded and matter to  the latter for filling up the six vacancies.  Then other appeals preferred by others, later, were dismissed as infructuous by the  Tribunal vide its order dated October 17, 1966 in  view of  the order already passed by it on November 29,  1963  in the appeal of Fakir Chand Gupta and others.  At its meetings held on August 28-29, 1964, the Regional Transport Authority considered  the applications of 17 persons whose  cases  had been remanded and refused to consider the appellants’ on the ground  that  they  had  not  appealed  against  the   order rejecting  their applications in 1962.  The  appellants  and Harish  Chandra  Misra, thereupon  preferred  four  separate appeals  under section 64A of the Motor vehicles Act to  the State  Transport  Tribunal.   During  the  pendency  of  the appeals,  Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur  route  became  an   inter- regional  (amalgamated) route by its extension upto  Bijnor. Thereupon,  all the four appellants applied to the  Tribunal for amendments of their original applications and for  grant of  permits  for the said amalgamated route.   According  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

their  prayer,  the  Tribunal  allowed  their  appeals   and directed  the  Regional  Transport Authority  that  they  be allotted  one  regular stage carriage permits each  for  the amalgamated  route.  Rahim-Ud-Din, an existing  operator  on the Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route filed a petition before the High  Court  for  issuance  of a  Writ  quashing  the  order granting  permits in favour of the appellants on the  Harish Chandra Misra.  The petition was partly allowed by a  single Judge of High Court quashing the order granting the  permits of the appellants on the ground that since they had  omitted to,  appeal  against  the order of  the  Regional  Transport Authority  rejecting  their  aplications for  the  grant  of permits in 1962 their case had come to an end and they could not  be  granted  any permits.  The  Letters  Patent  Appeal preferred by the appellants failed. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court under Art. 226 of the  Constitution should be reluctant to interfere or disturb the decision  of specially constituted authorities or tribunals under the Act especially  when the legislature has entrusted the  task  of granting  or  renewing  the stage carriage  permits  to  the aforesaid authorities or tribunals which are expected to  be fully  conversant  with the procedure and practice  and  the relevant  matters which should engage their attention  under the  provisions  contained  in the  Act.   In  dealing  with applications  for writs of certiorari under Article  226  of the Constitution. in cases of the present 454 the  High  Court must not exercise the  jurisdiction  of  an appellate court and the findings or conclusions on questions of  fact  could  hardly be re-examined or  disturbed  by  it unless  the  well  recognised  tests  in  that  behalf  were satisfied. [458 A-D] Kailanchand  Narsinhdas Bhatia v. State Transport  Appellate Authority, and Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 695, reiterated. Sri  Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C. Chandra  Sekaran  and Ors. [1964] 5 SCR 869. Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act emphasises the interest of  the travelling public as the dominant  consideration  in the  grant  of permits and no order in exercises  of  powers under  Art.  226  or  Art.  136  of  the  Constitution  will ordinarily be passed if the public is likely to suffer. In the instant case : (a) the High Court should not have  in exercise  of its writ jurisdiction interfered in a  case  of this  nature  particularly  when  the  cancellation  of  the appellants’  permits  was bound to cause  inconvenience  and hardship to the travelling public; (b) the route in question had  assumed  the  character of  an  an  amalgamated  inter- regional route in regard where to the provisions of  Section 47(3) of the Act which are confined in their operation to  a region  or a specified area or a specified route,  within  a region  were not applicable and the need for increasing  the number  of permits in the interest of public was  recognised by the Regional Transport Authority itself in its resolution No.  44(5)  passed by it in its meetings held on July  7  to July  10, 1970, which is expressly alluded to in  the  order dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate  Tribunal as also the fact that the appellants have been operating  on the  route  for  quite sometime and do not  appear  to  have indulged in any malpractice. [457 E-H] Mohd.  lbrahim etc. v. State Transport  Appellate  Tribunal, Madras etc. [1971] 1 S.C.R. 474 followed. [The  court  it.1  view  of its  decision  in  this  appeal, dismissed  the connected special leave petition (Civil)  No. 1852/76].

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1276  of 1975. Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dated 27-8-1975 of the Allahabad High CouRt in Special Appeal  No. 208/75. WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No. 1852 of 1976. From the Judgment and Order dated 3-9-1975 of the  Allahabad High Court to Special Appeal No. 216/73. S.   C. Agarwala, for the appellants. A. K. Sen (in CA No. 1276), J. P., Goyal and Ranhir Jain, for Respondents 3-5 and Petitioner in SLP. L. N. Sinha, D. P. Singh and R. K. Jain, for Respondent  No. 3 in SLP. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT  SINGH, J-This appeal by ’special leave is  directed against  the judgment and order dated August 27, 1975  of  a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at  Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 208 of 1973 upholding the order  dated August  28, 1973 of a Single Judge of that Court whereby  he quashed the order dated May 455 5,  1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal  granting regul  permits in favour of the appellants  for  amalgamated route  known  as Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur,  Meerut-Bijnor  via Mawana-Meerut  Mawana  Khurd-Phalauda,  Meerut-Masuri-Lawar- Phalauda, Meerut-Masuri-Lawar and  Khatauli-Phalauda-Mawana- Makdoompur route. The dispute as stated in the judgment and order under appeal relates to.  Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route, the limit of  the number of stage carriage permits whereof was raised from  11 to  15  in 1959.  Out of the additional four  permits  which thus  became  available for grant,  the  Regional  Transport Authority granted three to the displaced persons and invited applications  to  fill  up the remaining  one  vacancy.   In response to the invitation, the appellants also applied  for grant  of  the stage carriage permits for  the  said  route. While  considering  the  applications  and  exercising   its authority of grant of the permits under section 48 read with section  57  of the Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939  (hereinafter called ’the Act’), the Regional Transport Authority mod fied the  limit  of  number of the  stage  carriage  permits  and increase  it from 15 to 20 which it could not do in view  of the law settled by this Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey  (1)  and  Ors., M/s.  Jay Rom Motor  Service  v.  S. Rajarathnam  and  Ors.(2), Baluram v.  The  State  Transport Appellate  Authority,  Madhya  Pradesh  &  Ors.(3)  and   R. Obliswami  Naidu  v. The Adadl.  State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal, Madras & Ors.(4) and granted the six permit to (1) Mohd.   Matin Sheikh, (2) Satwati Devi, Sardar Singh  Chidda Singh  and  Mahendra  Singh, (3) Satyapal  Khetre  Pal,  (4) Ramesh  Mohan  Sharma,  (5) Chajju Mal and  (6)  Hari  Dass, disallowing  the  applications of the  appellants  and  some others  including  Harish Chandra Mishra and  rejecting  the representations  made  by  Fakir  Chan  Gupta  and   others. Against  this  order of the  Regional  Transport  Authority, Fakir Chand Gupta and a few others including Harish  Chandra Mishra preferred an appeal to the State Transport  Appellate Tribunal.  The Tribunal by its order dated November 26, 1963 set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority  and remanded  the  matter to the latter for filling up  the  six

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

vacancies  after following the procedure referred to in  the decision of this Court in Abdul Mateen v.    Ram     Kailash Pandey (supra). where it was held :-               "Section  47(3)  gives power to  the  Regional               Transport  Authority  having  regard  to   the               matters  mentioned  in subs.(1) to  limit  the               number  of stage carriages generally etc.   It               would   be  clear  therefore  that  when   the               Regional  Transport Authority proceeds in  the               manner  provided  in  s.  57  to  consider  an               application  for a stage carriage  permit  and               eventually  decides either to grant it or  not               to  grant it under s. 48 its order has  to  be               subject to the provisions of S. 47,  including               s.  47(3)  by  which  the  Regional  Transport               Authority  is  given the power  to  limit  the               number of stages generally etc. (1)  [1963] 3 S.C.R. 523 (2)  C.A.95 of 1965 decided on 27-10-1967. (3)  C.A. 727 of 1965 decided on 22-3-1968. (4)  [1969] 3 S.C.R. 730. 456               Therefore, if the Regional Transport Authority               has  limited the number of stage carriages  by               exercising its power under s. 47(3), the grant               of permits by it under S. 48 has to be subject               to the limit fixed under S. 47(3).  We  cannot               accept   the  contention  on  behalf  of   the               appellant  that  when the  Regional  Transport               Authority following the procedure provided  in               S.  57, comes to grant or refuse a  permit  it               can  ignore  the limit fixed under  S.  47(3),               because  it is also the authority  making  the               order under s. 48.  Section 47(3) 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  Autho-               rity, 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   who   may   have   made                             applications  to it under s. 46 read  with  S.               57.   That  in our opinion is  not  the  stage               where the general order passed under S.  47(3)               can be re-considered 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." Ten  other persons whose applications for grant  of  permits were  rejected  also  preferred  appeals  before  the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal but the same were dismissed  as infructuous by the Tribunal vide its order dated October 17, 1966  in view of the order already passed by it on  November 26,  1963  in the appeal of Fakir Chand  Gupta  and  others. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority at its meetings held  on August 28 and 29, 1964 considered the  applications of  17  persons  whose cases had been  remanded  to  it  but refused  to  consider  the cases of the  appellants  on  the ground  that  they  had  not  appealed  against  the   order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

rejecting   their  applications  in  @1962.   The   Regional Transport Authority also rejected the application of Harish Chandra  Mishra though his matter had been remanded  by  the State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal.   The  appellants  and Harish  Chandra  Mishra thereupon  preferred  four  separate appeals  under section 64 of the Act to the State  Transport Appellate  Tribunal.   During the pendency of  the  appeals, Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur   route  became  an  inter   regional (amalgamated) route by its extension upto  Bijnor.Thereupon, the appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra applied  to     the Tribunal  for amendment of their original  applications  and for  grant  of  permits  for  the  said  amalgamated  route. Acceding  to their prayer, the Tribunal allowed the  appeals and  directed that the appellants and Harish Chandra  Mishra be  allotted one regular stage carriage permit each for  the amalgamated route mentioned above.  Aggrieved by this order, Rahimuddin,  an  existing  operator  on  the  Meerut-Mawana- Miranpur  route filed a petition before the High  Court  for issuance  of a writ quashing the order granting  permits  in favour  of  the appellants and Harish Chandra  Mishra.   The said petition was 457 allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court in so far as the appellants  were  concerned on the ground  that  ’since  the appellants  had omitted to appeal against the order  of  the Regional  Transport Authority rejecting  their  applications for grant of permits in 1962, their case had come to an  end and they could not be granted any permit.  Dissatisfied with this judgment and order, the appellants preferred a  Letters Patent  Appeal which was dismissed vide judgment  and  order dated  August  28, 1973.  It is against  this  judgment  and order  that  the appellants have come up in appeal  to  this Court. We   have   heard  learned  counsel  for  the   parties   at considerable length.  It is true that the appellants did not appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting-  their  applications  in 1962 but  as  they  were informed of the rejection of their applications only in 1964 and  the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal  had  vide  its order dated November 26, 1963 already set aside the order of the  Regional  Transport Authority which had  been  made  in contravention  of the settled law, there was in  reality  no subsisting  order  against which the appellants  could  have fruitfully  appealed.  And even if they bad appealed,  their appeals  were bound to meet the same fate as the  other  ten appeals   which,  as  already  stated,  were  dismissed   as infructuous.   In this view of the matter, we find no  force in the prefatory submissions made by Mr. Ashok Sen that  the applications made by the appellants for grant of the permits to  the Regional Transport Authority having become  non  est with  their  rejection in 1962, no rival claim made  by  the appellants  which could merit determination was left  to  be considered either by the Regional Transport Authority or  by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Coming  now  to the merits, we are of  opinion  that  having regard  to the facts that with its extension,  upto  Bijnor, the  route  in  question bad assumed  the  character  of  an amalgamated  inter-regional  route  in  regard  whereto  the provisions  of  section  47  (3)  of  the.   Act  which,  as succinctly held by this Court in Mohd, Ibrahim etc. v. State Transport  Appellate Tribunal, Madras etc. (1) are  confined in  their  operation to a region or a specified  area  or  a specified route within a region were pot applicable and  the need for increasing the number of permits in the interest of public  was recognised by the Regional  Transport  Authority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

itself  in its resolution No. 44(5) passed at  its  meetings held  on July 7 to July 10, 1970 which is expressly  alluded to  in  the aforesaid order dated May 5, 1973 of  the  State Appellate Tribunal as also the fact that the appellants have been  operating on the route for quite sometime and  do  not appear  to  have indulged in any malpractice, we  think  the High  Court  should  not  have  in  exercise  of  its   writ jurisdiction   interfered   in  a  case   of   this   nature particularly  when  the  cancellation  of  the   appellants’ permits was bound to cause inconvenience and hardship to the travelling  public.   After  all  section  47  of  the   Act empbasises  the  interest of the’ travelling public  as  the dominant consideration in the grant of permits and no  order in  exercise of powers under Article 226 or Article  136  of the Constitution will ordinarily be passed if the public  is likely to suffer.  And, surely, (1)  [1971] 1 S.C.R.474. 458 in  this  case, after all these years when all  these  buses having been plying, it will be. ritualistic to direct second consideration of the need to increase the number of  permits for  the  route which is now  admittedly  an  inter-regional route.   It  is  hardly  necessary  in  this  connection  to reiterate the observations made by this Court in Kishanchand Narsingh Das Bhatia v. State Transport Appellate Authority & Ors.(1)  that  the  High  Court under  Article  226  of  the Constitution  should  be  reluctant  to  interfere  with  or disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities or tribunals under the Act especially when the Legislature  has entrusted  the  task  of  granting  or  renewing  the  stage carriage  permits to the aforesaid authorities or  tribunals which are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure and  practice and the relevant matters which  should  engage their  attention under the provisions contained in the  Act. In dealing with applications, for writs of certiorari  under Article  226  of the Constitution in cases  of  the  present kind,  it is necessary to bear in mind that the  High  Court does not exercise the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court and the  findings  or  conclusions on questions  of  fact  could hardly  be re-examined or disturbed by it under Article  226 of the Constitution unless the well recognised tests in that behalf were satisfied vide : Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C. Chandrasekaran & Ors.(2). Accordingly,  we  allow the appeal, set aside  the  impugned judgments and orders of the High Court and restore the order dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate  Tribunal in  so  far  as  the  appellants  are  concerned.   In   the circumstances  of  the case, we leave the  parties  to  bear their own costs.                         ORDER S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1852/75 JASWANT  SINGH, J.-This is a petition under Article  136  of the Constitution seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated September 3, 1975 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 216 of 1973 upholding the judgment and order dated August-28, 1973 of K. N. Singh, J. in writ petition No. 3310 of 1973 whereby while dismissing  the  writ petition in part,  he  maintained  the order  dated  May 5, 1973 of the State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal in so far as it allowed. the appeal No. 237 of 1969 preferred by Harish Chandra Mishra against the order of  the Regional  Transport Authority, Meerut passed in its  meeting held  on August 28 and 29, 1964 and directed that a  regular stage  carriage  permit for the amalgamated route  known  as Meerut-Mawana-Hastinapur-Bijnor   and  allied   routes,   be

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

allowed to him. The  facts giving rise to this petition are set out  in  our judgment of even dated in Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 1975  and need not be re-iterated.  In view of the settled position of law that this Court would be reluctant to interfere with  or disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities or tribunals under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 especially when the  Legislature  has  entrusted the  task  of  granting  or renewing the stage (1)   [1968] 3 S.C.R. 605. (2)  [1964] 5 S.C.R. 869. 459 carriage  permits to the aforesaid authorities or  tribunals which are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure and  practice and the relevant matters which  should  engage their  attention under the provisions contained in  the  Act and  nothing  basically wrong with the order  sought  to  be appealed  against  so  far  as  Harish  Chandra  Mishra   is concerned  has  been found by the High Court,  as  also  the observations  made by this Court in Mohd.  Ibrahim  etc.  v. State  Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras etc.(",)  we  do not  find  any  merit in petition  which  is  dismissed  but without any order as to costs. S.R.            Appeal allowed & Petition dismissed (1) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 474,481-484. 460