http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANGRULPIR J T. MOTOR SERVICE (P) LTD., & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/04/1971

BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. SHELAT, J.M.

CITATION:  1971 AIR 1804            1971 SCR  561

ACT: Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939, ss.  46,  47,  57-Bombay  Motor Vehicles   Rules,  1959-Applications  for  permit-Power   of Regional   Transport  Authority  to  call   for   additional information and to publish it for  objections-Qualifications of applicants to be considered as on date of application for permit or as on date of consideration of applications.

HEADNOTE: The  respondents were bus operators who applied for  renewal of permits. which were to expire on different dates  between February  28, 1966 and September 30, 1966.  The  Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (appellant herein)  applied for  grant  of substantive permits in lieu  of  the  renewal applications  made  by  the  respondents.   On  account   of litigation  the  applications of the parties  could  not  be decided  for several years.  At the meeting of the  Regional Transport   Authority  on  July  29,  1970  when   all   the applications  were  placed for consideration  on  merits,  a preliminary  issue was raised on behalf of the appellant  to the effect that in view of the unusually long time which had elapsed  since the making of the applications in 1965-66  it had  become  necessary to call for and consider up  to  date information   about  all  the  applicants.    The   Regional Transport  Authority  directed all the  applicants  to  file additional  information  relating  to  matters  covered   by columns  10  to  16 and 19 of the  prescribed  form  of  the application   by   August  21,  1970  and   directed   their publication  and invitation of objections thereon.  All  the applicants including the respondents tendered additional  up to  date information about their operations in terms of  the order  of the Regional Transport Authority.  The  additional information  was  published  and  objections  thereto   were received.   The  Authority posted all the  applications  for consideration  on  merit  at a meeting due  to  be  held  on November 26, 1970.  The respondents meanwhile moved the High Court  for an order on the Regional Transport  Authority  to forbear  from  taking into account up  to  date  information while judging the merits of the contending operators and  to enjoin the said Authority to consider the applications  only on the basis of the information originally filed in the year 1965-66.   In  appeal  by special leave to  this  Court  the questions  for consideration were (i) whether  the  Regional

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

Transport  Authority  had  power  to  call  for   additional information   as  it  did;  (ii)  whether  such   additional information  could  be ordered to be  published;  and  (iii) whether the Regional Transport Authority was bound to decide the  applications on the basis of the qualifications of  the applicants originally given therein. HELD:     (i)  In  deciding  the question of  power  of  the Regional Transport Authority to call for further information it  has  to  be borne in mind that  the  Regional  Transport Authority  shall, in considering an application for  permit, have  regard  among other matters to the  interests  of  the public  generally,  the  advantages to  the  public  of  the services  to  be provided, the adequacy of  other  passenger transport services, the operation 36-1 S.C. India/71 562 by the applicant of other transport services including those in  respect of which applications from him for  permits  are pending, the benefit to any particular locality or location, likely  to  be  afforded  by  the  service.   Therefore   in considering  public  interest  if  the  Regional   Transport Authority  would  find  that the answers  furnished  by  any applicant are not full and complete, it will be constricting the  exercise  of  the  power  of  the  Regional   Transport Authority  by  denying it authority to  ask  for  additional information  for  full  and detailed  consideration  of  the applications  in  the interest of the public.  No  hard  and fast rule can be laid down as to how the Regional  Transport Authority  will  act or what the limitations of  its  powers will  be.   It is a statutory body.  It is to  exercise  its powers  in the public interest.  Such public  interest  will have  to  be considered with regard  to  particular  matters enumerated in s. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and  the particulars  of  an  application  are  to  be  judged   with reference  to ss. 46 and 47 in particular of the Act.   Rule 68(6)  of  the.   Bombay Motor  Vehicles  Rules,  1959  also enables  the State or the Regional Transport  Authority,  as the case may be, to require an applicant to appear before it and to withhold the consideration of the application for the permit  until the applicant has so appeared in person if  so required  or  by any recognised agent if so  permitted,  and until the applicant has furnished such information as may be required  by the Regional Transport Authority in  connection with  the  application.  The words ’in connection  with  the application’  are important.  These words indicate that  the Regional  Transport  Authority will have power  to  ask  for further  information.   In  the  absence  of  the   Regional Transport Authority acting under corrupt motive or  malafide or for any oblique purpose the discretion which is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority should not be undermined or restricted. (ii) Under  s.  57  of  the Act the  application  is  to  be published   in   order   to   enable   parties   to   submit representation in connection therewith.  In the present case in  view  of the fact that information was  asked  for  with regard  to specific columns of the application it could  not be  denied that the information was in connection  with  the application.  It was therefore within the competence of  the Regional  Transport  Authority  under s. 57 of  the  Act  to publish the application or the substance thereof in order to enable   the   persons  affected  thereby  to   send   their representations  to  the Regional Transport  Authority.   It would  be in fulfillment of the objects and purposes of  the Act  and advancement of public interest to ensure  that  the permit  is  granted  to  the  most  meritorious   applicant.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

Therefore it is all the more necessary to publish additional information in order to have the fullest materials on record for  proper  assessment  and evaluation of  the  merits  and demerits. (iii)     The  High Court was in error in holding  that  the Regional  Transport  Authority would have  to  consider  the respective  qualifications of the applicants as on the  date of  their applications and not as on the date of the  actual consideration  by  the Regional Transport Authority  of  the applications for the grant of permit.  Normally the Regional Transport Authority would consider the applications for  the grant  of permits within a short time of the  submission  of the applications.  If for any reason a long time has elapsed as  in the present appeal, the Regional Transport  Authority will have to consider the various matters enumerated in cls. (a)  to  (f)  of  s.  46 of the  Act  at  the  time  of  the consideration of the applications.  The death or  insolvency of  an applicant since the filing of the application  cannot be ignored.  The public interest stands in the forefront.  563 Maharashtra   State  Road  Transport  Corporation  v.   Babu Goverdhan  Regular  Motor Service, & Ors., [1970]  2  S.C.R. 319,  Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari & Ors., [1969] 2  S.C.&  507 and  A.  S. Jalaluddin v. Balasubramaniar Bits  Service  (P) Ltd.  C.A. No. 161/65 Dt. 31-10-1967, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 117 of 1971. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated November 20, 1970 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench  in Special Civil Application No. 939 of 1970. M.   C. Chagla, Santosh Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the appellant. B.   R. L. Iyengar, M. N. Phadke, Naunit Lal, and  Swaranjit Sondhi, for respondents nos.  1 to 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated  20 November, 1970 of the Bombay High Court  directing the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of the  applica- tions  for stage carriage permits pending before it  without any further delay and without any further adjournment at the instance of any party whatsoever. The  principal  questions for consideration in  this  appeal are;  first,  whether the Regional Transport  Authority  has power to call for further or additional information from the applicants  for  the grant  of  permit  at  the  time   of consideration  of the applications for the grant of  permits under  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred  to as  the  Act  and secondly whether  the  Regional  Transport Authority will consider the qualifications of the applicants as on the date of the consideration of the applications  for grant of permits. The  respondents are private operators.  They held  substan- tive permits on various routes.  They applied for renewal of permits which were to expire on different dates between 28th February,  1966  and 30th September,  1966.   The  appellant applied  for  grant of substantive permits in lieu  of  the renewal applications made by the respondents. While  those applications were pending before  the  Regional Transport  Authority,  Nagpur,  some  private  operators  on different  routes made an application under Article  226  of the  Constitution challenging the validity of the  direction of  the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to  the  Regional

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Transport   Authority   to  allow   ;the   State   Transport Corporation an applicant for the grant of 564 permit to furnish complete information in respect of columns 10,  14 and 15 on the prescribed form of  their  application for  grant of permit.  The Nagpur Bench of the  Bombay  High Court  by judgment and order dated 5 October,  1967  quashed the  order  of  the State Transport  Appellate  Tribunal  by holding  that the application filed by the  State  Transport Corporation  in that case was  defective and  the  Appellate Committee  had no jurisdiction to give the  State  Transport Corporation  a  fresh  opportunity  to  furnish   additional particulars.   An appeal was preferred from the judgment  of the High Court to this Court being Civil Appeal No. 1297  of 1968 : Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.  Babu Goverdhan  Regular  Motor Service & Ors. This Court   on  10 September,  1969 held that the Regional Transport  Authority would  be acting within its jurisdiction in calling upon  an applicant  to  give  more complete details and  to  give  an opportunity to the other parties to state their objections. During the pendency of appeal in the case of Babu  Goverdhan Regular Motor Service, the respondents except respondent No. 4  moved the High Court by Writ Petitions in the  year  1969 for  hearing  of  their applications for  grant  of  permit. Those  Writ Petitions were disposed of by the High Court  by consent  order dated 20 March, 1969 by which it  was  agreed that  till  the  decision of this Court  in  Babu  Goverdhan Regular  Motor  Service,  the renewal  applications  of  the respondents and the applications of the appellant in lieu of renewal would be postponed for consideration. After  the decision of this Court in Babu Goverdhan  Regular Motor  Service  the  Regional  Transport  Authority  held  a meeting  on 28 October, 1969 to consider  the  applications. The  appellant  at  that meeting  sought  permission  to  Me additional information in the light of the above decision of this Court.  The Regional Transport Authority adjourned  the proceeding  till 27 November, 1969.  At the meeting held  on 27  November,  1969  respondent No.  6  contended  that  the Regional  Transport  Authority must,  before  proceeding  to consider  that application, fix the limit of the  number  of permits under section 47(3) of the Act.  This step was to be taken before consideration of the applications for the grant of  permit.  The Regional Transport Authority postponed  the consideration of the applications and fixed the next meeting on  12  December,  1969, so that it would  comply  with  the provisions  of section 47(3) of the Act.  No  meeting  could however be held for want of quorum and the next meeting  was fixed for 8 January, ’1970. (1)  [1970] 2 S.C.R. 319. 565 The appellant meanwhile by a letter dated 29 December,  1969 addressed to the Regional Transport Authority gave  additio- nal information in respect of columns 10, 11, 12, 14 and  15 of  the  prescribed  form  and  called  upon  the   Regional Transport  Authority  to  publish the  said  information  to enable  the  contending  or  competing  operators  to   file objections.   The appellant gave up to date  information  in order  to enable the Regional Transport Authority  to  judge the respective merits of the applicants which, according  to the appellant, could not be done on the basis of information furnished  in the application filed in the year  1966.   The appellant simultaneously furnished copies of the  additional information   to  the  respondents  who  were  the   private operators. At  the  meeting of the Regional Transport Authority  on  21

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

March,  1970 the appellant requested the Regional  Transport Authority  for  publication of the  additional  information. The Regional Transport Authority acceded to the request  and directed  the Secretary of the Regional Transport  Authority to publish additional information.  Some of the  respondents who had initially objected to the receipt and publication of additional information ultimately withdrew the objections. At about the time of the application of the information  one of  the respondents applied to the High Court for  an  order that  the Regional Transport Authority was  unduly  delaying consideration of the applications on merits.  The High Court by  an  order  dated 30 April, 1970  directed  the  Regional Transport   Authority  to  commence  consideration  of   the applications  as  expeditiously as possible and  within  two months  from the date of the order.  The High Court  further observed that the applications for the grant of permits were ripe  for  hearing  and  it was not the  stage  at  all  for publishing any information which the appellant might  have lodged  with  the Regional Transport  Authority.   The  High Court  took the view that the Regional  Transport  Authority might  call  for additional information but it was  not  the case there because the appellant of its own sent  additional information  and  it  amounted  to  an  amendment  of  their application which was not permissible under the Act and also in  view  of the decision of. this Court in  Babu  Goverdhan Regular Motor Service case(1). The  Regional  Transport Authority held the  meeting  on  29 July,  1970  and  all  the  applications  were placed  for consideration on merit.  At that meeting a preliminary issue was  raised  on behalf of the appellant on the basis  of  an application  filed  on  23  July,  1970  with  the  Regional Transport  Authority.  to  the effect that in  view  of  the unusually  long time which had elapsed since the  making  of the  applications  in  the year 1965-66  for  the  grant  of permits it had become necessary to call for and consider  up to (1)  [1970] 2 S.C.R. 319. 566 date  information  about all the applicants.   The  Regional Transport  Authority  directed all the  applicants  to  file additional  information  relating  to  matters  covered   by columns  10  to  16 and 19 of the  prescribed  form  of  the application   by  21 August,  1970  and   directed   their publication and invitation of objections thereon. All the applicants including the respondents tendered  addi- tional  up  to date information about  their  operations  in terms  of  the order of the  Regional  Transport  Authority. Additional  information was published.   Objections  thereto were received.  The Regional Transport Authority posted  all the applications for consideration on merit at a meeting due to be held on 26 November, 1970. The respondents meanwhile moved the High Court for an  order on  the Regional Transport Authority to forbear from  taking into account up to date information while judging the merits of  the  contending  operators and to  enjoin  the  Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications only on the basis of the information originally filed in the year  1965- 66, and not on the basis of any up to date information.  The High  Court  by judgment and order dated 20  November,  1970 directed the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of  all the applications at the meeting on 26 November, 1970 and not to  postpone consideration and disposal of the  applications on any ground whatsoever.  This is the judgment out of which the present appeal arises. The  High Court held that applications filed  under  section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

46.  of  the Act could not be permitted to  be  amended  and calling for additional information by the Regional Transport Authority  would  have the effect of granting  amendment  of applications.  Secondly, the High Court held that the  order of  the  Regional Transport Authority dated  29  July,  1970 virtually  permitted  amendment of the applications  by  the private  operators  as  well as by the  appellant  and  this course  was contrary to law and was opposed to the  previous directions given by the High Court on 30 April, 1970 to  the Regional Transport Authority, to dispose of the applications within  two months.  Thirdly, the High Court held  that  the Regional Transport Authority had to consider the  respective qualifications  of  the applicants as on the date  of  their applications   and  not  as  on  the  date  of  the   actual consideration   by   the   Regional   Transport   Authority. Fourthly,  the  High Court held that while  considering  the applications the Regional Transport Authority under  section 47 of the Act could call for such specific information as it needed from a particular applicant, but in the present  case full  information from all the applicants had  already  been called  for  and  was  now on the  record  of  the  Regional Transport  Authority  and therefore the  Regional  Transport Authority should dispose of the applications pending  before it for five years without further delay. 567 The first question which falls for consideration is  whether the  Regional  Transport Authority can call for  further  or additional    information   from   the   applicants.     The applications  for  stage  carriage  permit  are  to  contain particulars  mentioned  in  section 46 of  the  Act  and  in clauses (a) to (f) thereof which are as follows               "Application  for  stage  carriage  permit.-An               application  for  a  permit in  respect  of  a               service  of  stage  carriages  or  to  use   a               particular  motor vehicle as a stage  carriage               (in  this  Chapter  referred  to  as  a  stage               carriage  permit)  shall, as far  as  may  be,               contain the following particulars namely:               (a)   the route or routes or the area or areas               to which the application relates;               (b)   the number of vehicles it is proposed to               operate in relation to each route or area  and               the  type  and seating capacity of  each  such               vehicle;               (c)   the minimum and maximum number of  daily               trips  proposed to be provided in relation  to               each  route or area and the time table of  the               normal trips;               (d)   the  number of vehicles intended  to  be               kept in reserve to maintain the service and to               provide for special occasion;               (e)   the arrangements intended to be made for               the  housing and repair of the  vehicles,  for               the comfort and convenience of passengers  and               for the storage and safe custody of luggage;               (f) such other matters as may be prescribed."               An  application for stage carriage  permit  is               under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules 1959  to               be made in the form prescribed by rule 80  and               described as form P. St. S. A. The  prescribed               form  of the application contains 22  columns.               In  the present appeal, the columns which  are               relevant  for consideration are columns 10  to               16 and 19.  These columns are as follows:               "10.   Number of vehicles kept in  reserve  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

             maintain the service regularly and to  provide               for special occasion               11.  Arrangements made for housing and  repair               of vehicles (to be given in detail)               12.   Arrangements  made for  convenience  and               comfort of passengers               568               13.   Arrangements  made for storage and  safe               custody of luggage               14.   Particulars  of  any stage  or  contract               carriage permit valid     in  the State,  held               by the applicant               15.   Particulars  of any permit held  by  the               applicant  in  respect  of  the  use  of   any               transport vehicle in any other State               16.   Whether any of the permits stated  above               has been subject of an order of suspension  or               cancellation in last four years.  If so,  give               details               19.   I   am  at  present  in  possession   of               vehicles   available for use under the  permit               applied for."               Section    47 (1) of the Act which deals  with               the power of the Regional Transport  Authority               to grant permits is as follows               "Procedure of Regional Transport Authority  in               considering  application  for  stage  carriage               permit:  (1)  A Regional  Transport  Authority               shall,  in  considering an application  for  a               stage carriage permit, have regard to the fol-               lowing 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               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;               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,                569               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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

             cooperative  society registered or  deemed  to               have  been registered under any  enactment  in               force for the time being shall, as far as  may               be, be given preference over applications from               individual owners." The other section relevant for purposes of grant of  permits is  section 57 of the Act which deals with the procedure  of the Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for  stage  carriage permit.  There are 10  sub-sections  of section 57.  The two important sub-sections for the purposes of the present appeal are section (2) and (3).   Sub-section (2) deals with the time for making applications for grant of permits.   No  dispute  arises on  that  subsection  in  the present appeal.  Sub-s. (3) provides that on receipt of an application for stage carriage permit the Regional Transport Authority   shall   make  the  application   available   for inspection at the office of the Authority and shall  publish the applications 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  thirty  days  from  such publication  on which, and the time and place at which,  the application   and  any  representations  received   win   be considered.  The only question which arises  on  sub-section (3)  of  section  57 of the Act in  the  present  appeal  is whether  further or additional information as may be  called for by the Regional Transport Authority will also have to be published. In the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service(1)  this Court  held that the form prescribed by the Rules  requiring the furnishing of information on the various particulars and matters referred to therein was valid and section 46 of  the Act,  Rule  80 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles  Rules  and  the prescribed form would all have to be read together in  order to  find out the scheme of the Act on the question of  power of  the  Regional Transport Authority to ask  for  full  and complete information. Section  46  of the Act which deals  with  applications  for stage carriage permit enumerates the particulars to be given in the applications.  The prescribed form is with  reference to these particulars.  In the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service(1) the State Transport Corporation in  filling up columns 14 and 15 with regard to particulars of stage or contract carriage permits held by the applicant in the State and  in  any other State did not give  full  particulars  of permits and ended by using the word "et cetera".  The (1) [1970] 2 S.C.R.319. 570 High  Court  in  the case of Babu  Goverdhan  Regular  Motor Service  held that the application of the appellant in  that case was invalid’ because the application did not give  full and complete details in respect of columns 14 and 15.   This Court held that the applicant in that case should have given an  exhaustive list of the other permits held by it  in  the State  or  in  any  other  State  and  therefore  the  State authorities  could  call  upon  a  party  to  give  complete details.   The High Court in the present case expressed  the view that giving of details would amount to an amendment  of the  application  and that this Court in the  case  of  Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service(1) held that there could  be no amendment of an application.  The decision of this  Court is  not  to that effect.  If particulars will  be  furnished these particulars will become part of the application.   The application is to that extent amended. In deciding the question of power of the Regional  Transport

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

Authority to call for further information it has to be borne in  mind  that the Regional Transport  Authority  shall,  in considering  an  application for permit, have  regard  among other matters to the interests of the public generally,  the advantages to the public of the services to be provided, the adequacy   of  other  passenger  transport   services,   the operation  by  the  applicant of  other  transport  services including  those in respect of which applications  from  him for  permits  are  pending, the benefit  to  any  particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service. Therefore  in  considering public interest if  the  Regional Transport Authority would find that the answers furnished by any  applicant  are  not  full  and  complete,  it  will  be constricting the exercise of power of the Regional Transport Authority  by  denying it authority to  ask  for  additional information  for  full  and detailed  consideration  of  the applications  in  the interest of the public.  No  hard  and fast rule can be laid down as to how the Regional  Transport Authority  will act or what the limitations of their  powers will  be.   It  is  a statutory body.   It  is  to  exercise statutory  powers  in  the  public  interest.   Such  public interest  would  have  to  be  considered  with  regard   to particular  matters enumerated in section 47 of the Act  and the  particulars  of an application are to  be  judged  with reference  to sections 46 and 47 in particular of  the  Act. Reference may also be made to rule 68(6) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles  Rules  which  enables the State  or  the  Regional Transport  Authority,  as  the case may be,  to  require  an applicant  to  appear  before it and to  withhold  the  con- sideration  of  the  application for the  permit  until  the applicant has so appeared in person if so required or by any recognised  agent if so permitted, and until  the  applicant has  furnished  such information as may be required  by  the Transport Authority in connection with the application.  The words  "in connection with the application"  are  important. These words indicate that the Regional, (1)  [1970] 2 S.C.R. 319.  571 Transport  Authority  will  have power to  ask  for  further information. In the present case, on 29 July, 1970 the Regional Transport Authority  found  that  the  applications  which  had   been submitted  in  the year 1965-66 would hardly  represent  the real merits of the operators in the year 1970.  The Regional Transport  Authority  therefore directed the  applicants  to file  additional information relating to matters covered  by columns 10 to 16 and 19 of the prescribed form. The  further direction was that the information would be filed before  21 August, 1970, and would be published and objections would be called  for  within 15 days from the  date  of  publication. Counsel  for the respondents submitted that the  information supplied by the applicants pursuant to the direction of  the Regional  Transport  Authority would be voluminous  and  the publication would take a long time.  Under section 57 of the Act  the application is to be published in order  to  enable parties  to submit representation in  connection  therewith. Publication therefore is a statutory obligation.  In view of the  fact  that  information was asked for  with  regard  to specific columns of the application it cannot be denied that the information was in connection with the application.   It will  therefore  be within the competence  of  the  Regional Transport  Authority under section 57 of the Act to  publish the application or the substance thereof in order to  enable the  persons affected thereby to send their  representations to the Regional Transport Authority.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

The Regional Transport Authority is entrusted by the statute to  consider  the  applications for  the  grant  of  permit. Application  are  on  a printed form.  It will  be,  in  the interest  of the applicants to furnish all information.   If however  for  any reason, the Regional  Transport  Authority will  require further information, it will depend  upon  the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether the power is  exercised bona fide, and whether the discretion that  is conferred  on the Regional Transport Authority is  exercised properly  and judiciously.  In the absence of  the  Regional Transport Authority acting under any corrupt motive or  mala fide  or  for  a oblique purpose  the  discretion  which  is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority should not  be undermined and restricted. The High Court was in error on the second question in  hold- ing  that  the Regional Transport Authority  would  have  to consider the respective qualifications of the applicants  as on the date of their applications and not as on the date  of the actual consideration by the Regional Transport Authority of the applications for the grant of permit.  Normally,  the Regional Transport Authority would consider the applications for  the  grant  of  permits within  a  short  time  of  the submission of the applications.  If for any reason 572 a  long time elapses as in the present appeal, the  Regional Transport  Authority  will  have  to  consider  the  various matters  enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of section  46  of the Act at the time of consideration of the applications for the  grant  of permits.  The public interest stands  in  the forefront.   If the Regional Transport Authority  will  find that  the applicant has become insolvent subsequent  to  the submission of the application it cannot be expected that the Regional Transport Authority will yet have to grant a permit to the insolvent applicant.  In refusing the grant of permit the  solvency  of  the  applicant will  enter  the  area  of appreciation  and assessment of the merits and  demerits  of the  applicant.  Again, if an applicant died  subsequent  to the  submission  of the application the  Regional  Transport Authority will have to consider at the time of the grant  of permit   whether   it  will  allow  the  heirs.   or   legal representatives  to  stand  in the  shoes  of  the  deceased applicant.   This question arose before this Court in  Dhani Devi  v. Sant Bihari & Ors. (1).  This Court held  that  the Regional Transport Authority would have power to  substitute the  heirs/successors in place of the deceased applicant  in the  records of the proceedings and allow the successors  to prosecute the application. In the unreported decision of this Court in A. S. Jalaluddin v.  Balasubramaniar  Bus Service (P) Ltd.  and  Anr.(2)  the Regional  Transport Authority refused to grant permit to  an applicant  on  the ground that he did not have  either  main office  or branch office or residence on the  route  applied for.   The  applicant  preferred  an  appeal  to  the  State Appellate  Tribunal.  The Tribunal set aside the  order  and granted  the permit to the appellant.  Before  the  Tribunal the  appellant’s  counsel  in  that  case  stated  that  the applicant  had sent to the Regional Transport  Authority  in advance   of  the  date  fixed  for  consideration  of   the application  for the grant of permit a letter  stating  that the  appellant had secured a branch office on the  route  in question.   The  finding of the Tribunal was  challenged  by writ petitions in the High Court.  The learned Single  Judge of  the  High Court held that the finding  of  the  Tribunal could not be challenged but the Division Bench held that the finding  of the Tribunal as to possession of  branch  office

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

and  residence  on the route by the  appellant  was  without evidence.   This Court set aside the Bench decision  of  the High  Court and restored the judgment of the learned  Single Judge by holding that there was material before the Tribunal that  the  appellant  had secured  a  branch  office.   This decision  establishes  two  propositions:  First,  that   an applicant  can furnish additional or further information  in connection   with  the  application  before   the   Regional Transport   Authority  and,  secondly  that   the   Regional Transport Authority is competent to (1)  [1969] 2 S.C.R.507. (2)C.A.No.161 of 1965  decided on  31-10-1967. 573 act on such information at the time of consideration of  the applications for the grant of permits.  It will always  have to be found out in the facts and circumstances of each  case as to the nature of information, the manner of furnishing it in order to decide whether the Regional Transport  Authority was  entitled to ask for such information and the  applicant was entitled to furnish it. If the Regional Transport Authority will have at the date of the  consideration of the grant of permit information  which may  disentitle  the  applicant  by  reason  of  conviction, insolvency,  loss  of  fleet, lack  of  facilities,  or  any subsequent event of importance as would affect the grant  of permit  to  an applicant, it would be in fulfilment  of  the objects  and purposes of the Act and advancement  of  public interest  to ensure that the permit is granted to  the  most meritorious  applicant.   Therefore  it  is  all  the   more necessary  to’, publish additional information in  order  to have  the fullest materials on record for proper  assessment and evaluation of the merits and demerits. The High Court was wrong in directing the Regional Transport Authority to proceed on the basis of applications  submitted in the year 1965-66.  The Regional Transport Authority  will dispose  of  the  applications  on  the  basis  of   further information forwarded by the applicants and published by the Regional Transport Authority and representations by  parties in  connection therewith as expeditiously as possible.   The obvious need not be stressed that long time has elapsed  and the   Regional   Transport  Authority  should   proceed   in accordance  with law without further delay.  The  appeal  is accepted.   The  judgment of the High Court  is  set  aside. Each party will pay and bear their own costs. G. C.                     Appeal allowed., 574