http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 24  

PETITIONER: MOHD.  IBRAHIM ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRASETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/04/1970

BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1542            1970 SCC  (2) 233  CITATOR INFO :  R          1972 SC2110  (2)  F          1974 SC 391  (6)  F          1975 SC 386  (2,3)  F          1978 SC 949  (5,8)  R          1984 SC   9  (7)  RF         1988 SC1676  (5)

ACT: Motor  Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), ss. 47, 57 and 63-Scope  of in  relation  to  permits within  a  region,  inter-regional permits and inter-State permits.

HEADNOTE: (1)A Regional Transport Authority is not required under s. 47(3)  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939  to  take   into consideration any representations of the nature mentioned in s. 47(1) of the Act because there is first total absence  in s. 47(3) of any reference to representations mentioned in s. 47(1)  and secondly the Regional Transport  Authority  while acting under s. 47(3) does not deal with any dispute between operators and is confined to its own administrative  policy. [480 A. D-F] Neither the provision of a right of appeal under s. 64  read with r.   147(2)  to a ’person aggrieved’ by an order  under s. 47(3) nor the right to     apply for a revision under  s. 64A, is itself decisive of the true function of the Regional Transport  Authority under s. 47(3), and as to  whether  the said  authority has to grant hearing to persons at the  time of  fixing  the number of permits.  While  acting  under  s. 47(3) the Regional Transport Authority is the master of  its own  procedure, because it does not deal with individual  or competing  rights  of operators, but is required  to  arrive objectively  at  its  own  conclusion  independent  of   any application or representation by operators. [481 B-E] Therefore,  the Regional Transport Authority is not  obliged to  hear  operators while exercising jurisdiction  under  s. 47(3) in fixing the limit of number of permits. [481 E] (2)When  the  Regional  Transport  Authority  approves   a proposal  of  the Secretary of the Authority to open  a  new route  or to have an additional permit on an existing  route and,  therefore  notifications under s. 57(2)  are  made  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 24  

respect of grant of permit on a new route or an ’ additional permit on an existing route, it can reasonably be held  that there has been a valid order under s. 47(3), because, it  is not  the form but the substance of the order that has to  be considered. [487 D-E; A-C] (3)The  limit of number of permits fixed by  the  Regional Transport Authority under s. 47(3) cannot be modified by the Regional  Transport Authority when exercising  the  separate power of granting permits under s. 48, or even by the  State Appellate  Transport Authority dealing with appeals  against the  grant  of permits.  Section 48 begins  with  the  words ,subject to the provisions of s. 47 meaning thereby that the jurisdiction   to   grant   permits  is   subject   to   the determination  of the limit of number of permits.  It is  in the scheme of the Act that limit should be fixed before  the grant  of  permits and proper effect can be given  to  these provisions  by deciding upon the limit of number of  permits before application for grant 4 75 of  permits  are invited under s. 57(2) of the  Act  and  in other  cases  before application for grant  of  permits  are published  under  s. 57(3) of the Act to enable  persons  to make  representations.  The central idea is that  applicants and those who make representations should all know the limit of  number of permits to be granted in order to ensure  free and fair competition [485 A-G, D; 501 A-C] (4)Though the scheme of the statute has not been  followed in  all  the  appeals  in the  present  case,  the  Regional Transport  Authority  fixed the limit of number  of  permits before it actually considered the applications for grant  of permit and all parties competed for the grant on that  basis and  no  one expressed any grievance at the  time.   In  the facts and circumstances of the present appeals it was  found that  there was a valid order under s. 47(3) of the Act  and further there was a notification under s.    57(2)  of   the Act. [502 B-E] Abdul  Mateen  v. Ram Kailash Pandey, [1963] 3  S.C.R.  523, M/s.Jaya  Ram  Motor Service v. S.  Rajarathinan,  C.A.  No. 95/65  dt. 27-10-67, Baluram v. State  Transport,  Appellate Authority,  M.P.,  C.A.  No.  727/65  dt.  22-3-68  and   R. Obilaswami   Naidu  v.  Addl.   State  Transport   Appellate Tribunal, Madras, [1969] 1 S.C.R. 730, followed. (5)Section  47(3)  will not apply to  inter-State,  permits, because,  the  provision  relates to  a  Regional  Transport Authority limiting the number of permits in the region or in any  specified  area or on any specified  route  within  the region.   It is confined in its operation in or  within  the region-.Sections 45 and 63 establish that in the case of  an inter-State  permit  an application has to be  made  to  the concerned  Regional Transport Authority under s. 45 and  the permit has to be countersigned by the appropriate  authority concerned of the other State under s. 63, and the provisions of  s.  57 need not be followed for the  grant  of  counter- signatures.   Section 63A, 63B and 63C refer to  inter-State Transport  Commission  to  be  established  by  the  Central Government  for  dealing with inter-State permits.   In  the absence  of  directions by such Commission or rules  by  the Central  Government, the only way of harmonising the  powers and  functions of Road Transport Authorities in relation  to inter-State  routes,  is  that they  should  exercise  their powers  within  their  respective spheres  of  granting  and counter-signing permits by agreement and accord. [483 D-H] Similarly,  in view of the fact that s. 47(3) in  restricted in its field in or within the region, its provisions do  not apply to inter--regional permits also.  Section contemplates

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 24  

rules  and  conditions subject to which and  the  extent  to which, a permit shall be valid in another region within  the State without counter-signature, but in the absence of  such rules,   the  relevant  authorities  will  have  to   ensure agreement and act in concert. [484 F-H] The  number  of  permits in a region can  be  fixed  by  the Regional  Transport Authority of that region but it will  be for that region only.  ’Me number of permits for inter-State as well as inter-regional routes, beyond the frontier of the region,  can  only  be determined by  agreement.   When  the authorities  in the two regions have thus agreed to  open  a new route or to have an additional vehicle and  applications are invited for the grant of a permit in the case of  inter- State  or inter-regional permits, though s. 47(3)  does  not apply, to such routes, it will amount to an order,  deciding upon  the number of permits arrived at by agreement,  before granting the permits. [499 B-D] 476

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2322  ,of 1970 etc. Appeals from the judgment and orders dated October 27,  1969 etc. of the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 2709 of 1968 etc. K.K.  Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the  appellant (in C.As.  Nos. 2322 and 2378 of 1969). C.   S.   Prakasha  Rao  and  R.  Gopalakrishnan,  for   the appellants(in C.A. Nos. 2453-2456 of 1969 etc.) N.G.  Keishna  Iyengar  and R.  Gopalakrishnan,  for  the appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2379 of 1969 etc.) R.   Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants (in C.A. No. 2608 of 1969)     and respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 2341 of 1969). S.   Mohan   Kumaramangalam,   M.  K.  Ramamurthi,   M.   N. Rangachari,  Shyamala  Pappu  and  Vineet  Kumar,  for   the appellants ,(in C.A. No. 2332 of 1969). M.N. Rangachari, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellants (in C.A. Nos. 2323 of 1969 etc.) M.K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellants (in C.A. Nos. 2478 of 1969 etc.) M.K.  Ramamurthi, V. Subramanian and K. Jayaram, for  the appellants (in C.A. No. 2338 of 1969). V.Submmnian  and K. Jayaram, for the appellants (in  C.A. No. 2339 of 1969 etc.) K.Thirumalai and K. Jayaram, for the appellants (in  C.A. Nos. 2353 of 1969 etc.) A.R.  Ramnathan  and K. Jayaeam, for the  appellants  (in C.A. No. 8 of 1970). V.T. Gopalan and K. Jayaram, for the appellants (in  C.A. No. 2354 of 1969 etc.) K.Jayaram, for the appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2368 of 1969 ,etc.) A.R. Ramanathan and K. Jayaram, for respondent No. 1  (in C.A.  No.  2333 of 1969) and respondent No. 2 (in  C.A.  No. 2323 of 1969). K.K. Venugopal, K. R. Nambiar and A. S. Nambiar, for  the :appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2326 of 1969 etc.)                             477 V.T.  Gopalan, A. T. M. Sampath and E. C. Agrawala,’  for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 2326 of 1969). K.Thirumalai,  A. T. M. Sampath and E. C.  Agrawala,  for respondent  No. 5 (in C.A. No. 2337 of 1969) and  respondent No. 7 (ill C.A. No. 2380 of 1969).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 24  

M.N. Rangachari and Madan Mohan, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A.  No. 2344 of 1969), respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No.  2349 of  1969), respondent No. 3 (in C.A. No. 2337 of  1969)  and respondent No. 6 (in C.A. No. 2356 of 19691). S.Balakrishnan  and N. M. Ghatate, for respondent  No.  2 (in C.A. No. 2337 of 1969). R.   Mahalingier, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 2338 of 1969)     and respondent No. 3 (in C.A. No. 2356 of 1969). S.   Shaukat Hussain, for respondent No. 6 (in C.A. No. 2486 of 1969). N.G. Krishna Iyengar, P. N. Tiwari, J. B. Dadachanji,  O. C.  Mathur  and Ravinider Narain, for respondent No.  2  (in C.As. Nos. 2453 and 2358 of 1969). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray,  J. These appeals by certificate turn primarily on  the interpretation of section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicle_s  Act, 1939  (hereinafter called the Act) and raise two  questions. First, whether the Regional Transport Authority in  limiting the  number  of  stage carriages for  which  stage  carriage permits  may  be granted in the region or in  any  specified area or on any specified route in the region is required  to hear  persons or the said authority can limit the number  of stage  carriages  for  which permits may be  granted  by  an administrative  order under section 47 (3) of the Act.   The second question is whether in the facts and circumstances of these  appeals  there was in each case a valid  order  under section  47(3)  of  the Act limiting  the  number  of  stage carriages for which permits might be granted. Chapter IV of the Act deals with control of transport  vehi- cles.  Chapter IV consists of sections 42 to 68.  Section 42 speaks of permits for use of transport vehicles.  Section 44 contemplates  the Transport Authorities which are the  State Transport Authorities or the Regional Transport Authorities. A  State Transport Authority coordinates and  regulates  the activities   and   policies  of   the   Regional   Transport Authorities  of  the  State and performs  the  duties  of  a Regional  Transport  Authority  Where.  there  is  no   such Authority and settles all disputes and. 478 -decides  all matters on which difference of  opinion  arise between  the Regional Transport Authorities.  Section 45  of ’the  Act  mentions the Authority to  whom  application  for permit  shall  be  made.  Section 46 of the  Act  gives  the particulars  which an application for stage carriage  permit shall contain.  Section 47 ,of the Act deals with  procedure of a Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permits.  Section 48 confers power on the Regional   Transport  Authority  to  grant  stage   carriage permits.   Section 57 relates to the procedure  in  applying for and granting permits.  Section 63 deals with  validation of  permits  for  use  outside the region  in  which  it  is granted.  We have referred mainly to the sections which  are important  for  purposes of determination of  the  questions involved in these appeals. We  shall  first  deal with the question  as  to  whether  a Regional Transport Authority in limiting the number of stage carriages  for which permits may be granted as  contemplated in  section 47(3) of the Act-is required to hear persons  or it  can  determine  the limit  by  an  administrative  order without  hearing  persons.   In  considering  the   question whether  the  Regional Transport Authority in  limiting  the number  of stage carriage permits for which permits  may  be granted  acts  in a quasi-judicial or in  an  administrative manner,   a   distinction  must  be  noticed   between   the jurisdiction and functions of a Regional Transport Authority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 24  

in  relation to grant of stage carriage permits on  the  one hand  and limiting the number of stage carriage  permits  on the  other.   A Regional Transport  Authority  while  acting under  section  47(3)  of the Act  exercises  authority  and jurisdiction   which   is  entirely   different   from   the jurisdiction and authority of a Regional Transport Authority while  considering applications for granting stage  carriage permits.  It has been decided by this Court in Abdul  Mateen v.  Ram Kailash Pandey & Ors.(1) and the later decisions  in M/s.   Jaya Ram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam & Ors.  (2) Baluram  v. The State Transport Appellate  Authority  Madhya Pradesh  &  Ors.  (3) and R. Obliswami Naidu  v.  The  Addl. State  Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras &  Ors.(4)  that the  Regional ’Transport Authority has to fix the  limit  of number of stage carriage permits under section 47(3) of  the Act prior to the grant of stage carriage permits. The  difference between jurisdiction of the Regional  Trans- port  Authority while limiting the number of stage  carriage permits and its jurisdiction in relation to grant of permits is  recognised in section 57 of the Act.  Section  57  deals with (1)  [1963]  3S.C.R.  523. (2) Civil Appeal No. 95  of  1965 decided on 27-10-1967. (3)  Civil Appeal No. 727 of 1965 decided on 22-3-1968. (4)  [1969] 1 S.C.R. 730. 4 7 9 procedure in applying for and granting permits.  A  Regional Transport  Authority is required to dispose of  applications for  grant  of  permits at a public  hearing  at  which  the applicant   and  the  persons  making   representations   in connection  with  the application are heard.   The  Regional Transport  Authority is further required to give reasons  in writing  for refusal to grant permits to an applicant.   The right of persons to make representations in connection  with the application for the grant of permit arises by reason  of section 57(3) of the Act which provides for the  publication of an application for a stage carriage permit together  with a  notice  of  the  date  before  which  representations  in connection   therewith  should  be  made  to  the   Regional Transport Authority. This  procedure of hearing applications and  representations in connection therewith is not applicable when the  Regional Transport  Authority limits the number of-  stage  carriages for which permits may be granted.  Sections 47, 48 and 57 of the  Act deal mainly with jurisdiction, power and  procedure of   the  Regional  Transport  Authority  in   relation   to consideration  of  application  for and  grant  of  permits. Section  47(3)  of the Act is the only  provision  which  is applicable  to the jurisdiction, power and procedure of  the Regional  Transport Authority while limiting the  number  of stage  carriages  for  which permits  may  be  granted.   In section  47(3)  of  the  Act it  is  said  that  a  Regional Transport  Authority  may  having  regard  to  the   matters mentioned  in  sub-section  (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  (1)  of section 47 of the’ Act states  that  a Regional   Transport  Authority  shall  in  considering   an application for stage carriage permit have regard to matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) thereof and shall also take into  consideration  any  representations  made  by  persons already providing 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 24  

transport  facilities  or by any local authority  or  police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies.  In other words, section 47 (1 ) of  the Act  enjoins  that  a  Regional  Transport  Authority  while considering  applications for stage carriage  permits  shall have  regard to the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to  (f) thereof   and  shall  also  take  into   consideration   any representations as mentioned in the said sub-section. Section 47 (3) of the Act, on the other hand, speaks only of the matters mentioned in sub-section (1) which a Regional 480 Transport  Authority may have regard to while  limiting  the number  of  stage carriages.  The total absence  in  section 47(3)  of  the  Act  of  any  reference  to  representations mentioned  in  section  47(1) of the Act  indicates  that  a Regional Transport Authority under section 47(3) of the  Act is   not,   required   to  take   into   consideration   any representation  of the nature mentioned in section 47(1)  of the Act.  Representations mentioned in section 47(1) of  the Act are referable to representations contemplated in section 57(3) of the Act.  These, representations are those made  by operators  to  the Regional Transport  Authority  after  the publication  of an application for a stage carriage  permit. In  view  of the provisions of the Act and,  in  particular, section 48 of the Act which enacts that a Regional Transport Authority subject to the provisions of section 47 may  grant a stage carriage permit, it is manifest that representations contemplated  in  sections 47(1) and 57(3) of the  Act  are, representations  subsequent to the application for grant  of permit, and, therefore, these representations do not at  all enter  the  field  of  determination  of  number  of   stage carriages  under section 47(3) of the Act.   Representations mentioned   in   section  47(1)  of  the   Act   relate   to representations   by   and  between  the   competitors   and contenders   for  grant  of  a  permit.   These   individual representations  raise rival contentions between  operators. When  the  Regional Transport Authority acts  under  section 47(3)  of the Act it does not deal with any dispute  between operators.  The Regional Transport, Authority is required to arrive at its decision under section 47(3) of the Act having regard,  to  matters mentioned in section 47(1) of  the  Act independent  of  any  representation  by  operators  or  any hearing.   The deliberation as well as the decision  of  the Regional Transport Authority under section 47(3) of the  Act is confined to its own administrative policy and order.  The Regional Transport Authority in limiting the number of stage carriage permits under section 47(3) of the Act may. address itself  to  the  matters enumerated  in  subsection  (1)  of section 47 of the Act and the said Authority is not required to  hear operators at the time of the consideration  of  the matter of determining the limit of number of permits. Counsel  for the respondent relied on section 64 of the  Act which  conferred a right of appeal on a person aggrieved  by any order which may be prescribed as mentioned in clause (i) thereof and the rules framed under section 68 of the Act  by the  Madras  Government by General Order No. 1852  dated  28 May,  1965  and in particular rule 147(2)(i) which  made  an order passed under section 47(3) of the Act appealable.   It was  said  by counsel for the appellant that- the  right  of appeal  by any person aggrieved by any order would  indicate that a person 481 had a right of being heard. Emphasis was placed on the  word aggrieved’  to show that one’s grievance arose  because  one had  been denied relief in relation to one’s representation.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 24  

Prior to  the introduction of the new Rules conferring right of appeal in   respect of an order made under section  47(3) of the Act one could apply to the State Transport  Authority under  section  64A f the Act for revision of  an  order  in which  appeal lay. Now that there is a provision  of  appeal the position is not altered. Neither the right of appeal nor the  right to apply for revision is itself decisive  of  the true function of the Regional Transport authority   as    to whether  the said Authority has to grant hearing to  persons at the time of fixing the limit of number of stage  carriage permits. We have already referred to the elaborate procedure of    publication    of   applications    for    grant    of permits,representations by persons in connection  therewith, a   public   hearing  at  the  time  of   consideration   of applications and representations,  and written reasons being given  by the Regional Transport Authority for refusing  the permit.  The Regional Transport Authority on the other  hand while  acting  under section 47(3) deal with  individual  or competing  rights  of operators but is  required  to  arrive objectively  at  its  own  conclusion  independent  of   any application or representation by operators. We  are of opinion that the Regional Transport Authority  is not obliged to hear operators while exercising  jurisdiction under  section  47  (3) of the Act in fixing  the  limit  of number of stage carriage permits.  It is also to be  noticed that the limit of number of stage  carriage permits fixed by the Regional Transport Authority under  section 47(3) of the Act cannot be modified by the Regional  Transport  Authority when the said Authority exercises the separate    power   of granting permits under section 48 of the Act or even by  the State    Appellate   Transport   Authority   dealing    with appeals,against  the grant of permits. This proposition  was laid down in   the  case  of  Abdul  Mateen(1).  This   view fortifies the difference in  the functions and  jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority under section 47 (3)  of the Act on the one hand and section 48  of  the Act  on  the other.      Another question arose in two appeals Nos. 2478 of 1969 and  2328 of 1969 as to whether in the case  of  Inter-State stage  carriage  permits and inter-regional  stage  carriage permits  an  order  under  section  47(3)  of  the  Act   is contemplated prior to the grant of permits. Two sections are important in this behalf. They are sections 45 and 63 of the Act. Section 45 of the Act enacts that  an  application  for permit   shall   be   made   to   the   Regional   Transport Authority  of the region in which it is proposed to use  the vehicle  or vehicles.  If a vehicle is used in two  or  more regions within the,- (1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 523. 13 Sup-Cl./70-2 48 2 same State then the application for permit shall be made  to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which  the major  portion  of the route or area lies and  in  case  the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the  region is  approximately  equal,  the application is  made  to  the Regional  Transport Authority of the region in which  it  is proposed to Keep the vehicle.  Then again if it is  intended to use the vehicle in two or more regions lying in different States  the  application  shall  be  made  to  the  Regional Transport  Authority  of the region in which  the  applicant resides  or  has  his  principal  place  of  business.   It, therefore,  follows that in the case of inter-State  permits application  has  to  be  made  to  the  Regional  Transport Authority  of the region in which the applicant  resides  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 24  

has his principal place of business. In  the case of inter-State permits section 63A of  the  Act refers  to Inter-State Transport Commission  constituted  by the  Central  Government.   Section 63A(2)  of  the  Act  in clauses  (a), (c). and (d) thereof refer to the  performance by  the  Commission  of inter alia  the  regulation  of  the operation  of  transport vehicles in an  interState  region, issuing  of directions to the State Transport Authority  ,or the Regional Transport Authority interested regarding grant, revocation  and  suspension  of  permits  and  of   counter- signatures  of  permits  for  the  operation  of   transport vehicles  in respect of any route or area common to  two  or more  States.  Section 64C of the Act confers power  on  the Central Government to make rules inter alia for procedure to be followed in considering applications for a permit or  for counter-signature  of  permit,  as also  appeals  against  a decision of the Commission.  We were not shown any  relevant rule with regard to inter-State permits nor were we shown as to whether any inter-State Commission had issued  directions to  the State Transport Authority or the Regional  Transport Authority  regarding  grant, revocation  and  suspension  of permits common to two or more States. Therefore,   the   only  section  which  is   relevant   for determination ,of the question as to whether an. order under section  47(3)  of the Act is contemplated  for  inter-State permit  is section 63 of the Act.  Section 63(1) of the  Act states  that a permit granted in any one State shall not  be valid  in  another State unless countersigned by  the  State Transport  Authority of that other State or by the  Regional Transport  Authority concerned.  Section 63 (3) of the  ,Act states that the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act relating to  grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall  apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits.  The proviso to section 63(3) of the Act is that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid  down in section 57 of the Act for the grant of  countersignatures of  permits  where  permits granted in  any  one  State  are required   to  be  countersigned  by  the  State   Transport Authority of another State or by the Regional Transport 483 Authority  concerned as a result of an agreement arrived  at between the States.  These provisions establish that in  the case  of an interState permit an application has to be  made to the Regional Transport Authority of a State as  mentioned in  section  45  of  the  Act  and  the  permit  is  to   be countersigned by the State, Transport Authority of the other State  or by the Regional Transport Authority  concerned  as mentioned in section 63 of the Act.  Chapter IV consists  of section  42  to  68.  Section 57 deals  with  procedure  for application  and  grant  of  permits.   That  section   will therefore, apply for the grant of inter-State permits.   The effect  of the proviso to section 63(3) is that in the  case of  inter-State permits where an agreement has been  arrived at  between the States the provisions of section 57  of  the Act need not be followed for the grant of  countersignatures of  permits. In other cases the procedure in section  57  of the  Act  will  apply  in regard  to  grant  revocation  and suspension of permits and to countersignatures of permits as well.  Section 48 of the Act which relates to power to grant of  stage  carnage permits will also  apply  to  inter-State permits.   the  provisions  contained  in  sub-section   (1) generally and subsection (2) of section 47 will apply to the Regional Transport Authority at the time of consideration of the  application  for  inter-state  stage  carriage  permit. Section  47(3) of the Act will not in our opinion  apply  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 24  

inter-State  permits  because that provision  relates  to  a Regional  Transport Authority limiting the number  of  stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the  region  or in any specified area or  on  any  specified route  within the region.  In other words, section 47(3)  of the  Act  is  confined in its operation  in  or  within  the region.   The provisions of section 47(3) of the Act do  not apply  to interState permits because an  inter-State  permit cannot  be  effective  unless it  is  countersigned  by  the Authority of the other State.  The suggestion that in regard to inter-State permits a limit has to be fixed in regard  to number  of stage carriages for inter-State routes will  have the  effect  of adding words to the  provisions  in  section 47(3) of the Act.  That will not be the proper way of giving effect  to section 47(3) of the Act.  It will be  misreading section  47(3)  of the Act if it will be applied  to  inter- State permits.  The combined effect of section 63, 63A,  63B and  63C is that the inter-State Commission will  deal  with inter-State  permits.  The Central Government under  section 63C of the Act is authorised to-make rules in regard to  the procedure to. be followed in considering an application  for grant  and countersignature of permits.  In the  absence  of specific  rules, the best way of harmonising the powers  and functions  is  to  allow these  inter-State  authorities  to exercise  their  power within their  respective  spheres  in regard to grant and countersignature of permits by agreement and accord. In  the case of inter-regional permits an application  under section  45  of  the  Act has to be  made  to  the  Regional Transport 484 Authority  of the region in which the major portion  of  the proposed  route or area lies and in case the portion of  the proposed   route  or  area  in  each  of  the   regions   is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority  of the  region in which it is proposed to keep the  vehicle  or vehicles.  Then under section 63 of the Act a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region shall  not be   valid  in  any  other  region  unless  the  permit   is countersigned  by the Regional Transport Authority  of  that other  region.   Section  63  (3)  of  the  Act  makes   the provisions  of Chapter IV applicable relating to the  grant, revocation  and  suspension  of permits and  to  the  grant, revocation  and suspension of countersignature  of  permits. The result is that sections 47 to 68 which occur in  Chapter IV  are  therefore  attracted  in  case  of  inter  regional permits.  In view of the fact that section 47(3) of the  Act is  restricted  in its field in or within  the  region,  the provisions  in  terms  do not become  applicable  to  inter- regional permits.  Section 68 of the Act contemplates  rules and conditions subject to which and the extent to which.,  a permit  shall  be valid in another region within  the  State without countersignature.  We have not been shown any  rules to that effect.  The reasons which do not make section 47(3) applicable to interState permit apply proportion vigorous to inter-regional permits. A  s  in  the case of  inter-State  permits  the  harmonious reading of the sections will be to make sections 42 to 68 of the  Act applicable wherever it is possible to do  so.   The fixing  of limit of number of stage carriage permits  in  or within  the  region is entrusted to the  Regional  Transport Authority   because   of  the   particular   local   matters contemplated  in section 47(1) of the Act, namely,  adequacy of other transport services between the places to be served, benefit  to,  a particular locality to be  afforded  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 24  

service,  conditions of the roads included in  the  proposed route  or area.  These considerations in the case of  inter- State permits as also in the case of inter regional  permits cannot  be  said to be entrusted to the  Regional  Transport Authority to which, the application is made because both  in the  case of inter State permits and inter-regional  permits considerations in different States and in different  regions will  become relevant and are not embraced within the  scope and intent of section 47(3) of the Act.  We are therefore of opinion that section 47(3) of the Act will not apply  either to grant or to countersignature of permits both in the  case of  inter-State  and inter-regional permits.   The  relevant authorities  in  two  States  or  two  regions  will  ensure agreement and act in concert as the case may be.  The number of  services  in the region can of course be  fixed  by  the Regional  Transport  Authority  but they _will  be  for  the region  only.  The number of services for inter regional  or inter State routes beyond the frontier of the region  will,, have to be determined by agreement. 485 The next question which falls for determination is the point of  time  when  a Regional Transport  Authority  will  under section  47 (3) of the Act fix the limit of number of  stage carriage permits.  This Court in Abdul Mateen’s(1) case said that  the general Order by the Regional Transport  Authority under  section 47 (3) of the Act in regard to the  limit  of number of stage carriage permits can be modified only by the Regional    Transport   Authority   when   exercising    the jurisdiction under section 47 (3) of the Act.  The  Regional Transport Authority while acting under section 48 of the Act in  regard to the grant of permits has no  jurisdiction  and authority  to  modify  any  order  passed  by  the  Regional Transport  Authority  under section 47(3) of  the  Act.   In other  words,  the  limit fixed by  the  Regional  Transport Authority under section 47 (3) of the Act cannot be  altered by, the Regional Transport Authority at the time of grant of permits.     It   is,-therefore,   established   that    the determination  of limit ’of number of permits is to be  made before the grant of permits.  That-is why section 48 of  the Act is prefaced with the words "subject to the provisions of section   47  of  the  Act"  meaning  there  by   that   the jurisdiction  of the Regional Transport Authority  to  grant permits  is  subject to the determination of  the  limit  of number  of  permits under section 47(3) of  the  Act.   This Court  stated  the legal position in M/s.   Jaya  Ram  Motor Service’s  case(1) and said "it is therefore clear that  the authority  has first to fix the limit and after having  done so  consider  the  application  or  the  representations  in connection  therewith in accordance with the procedure  laid down  in  section 57 of the Act".  Again in the case  of  R. Obliswami  Naidu(3) this Court considered the submission  in that  case  as to whether the Regional  Transport  Authority could  decide  the  number  of  permits  while   considering applications  for  permits.  This Court did not  accept  the submission  because such a view would allow an operator  who happened to apply first to be in a cornmanding position with the result that the Regional Transport Authority would  have no  opportunity  to choose between competing  operators  and public interest might suffer.  In the same case it is  again said that the determination of the number of stage carriages for  which  stage carriage permits may be  granted  for  the route  is to be done first and thereafter  applications  for permits are to be entertained. The  four decisions of this Court to which we have  referred establish  two  propositions.   First,  that  the   Regional

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 24  

Transport Authority should fix the limit of number of  stage carriage  permits under section 47(3) of the Act  and  after having  done  so  the  Regional  Transport  Authority  ’will consider the application for (1)  [1963]  3 S.C.R. 523. (2) Civil Appeal No. 95  of  1965 decided on 27-10-1967 (3)  1969] 1 S.C.R. 730. 486 grant   and  representations  in  connection  therewith   in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 57 of the Act. Secondly, when a new route is opened for the first time and an advertisement is issued calling for applications  for such a new route specifying the number of vacancies for  it, it  would be reasonable to hold that the number of  vehicles is  specified  as  the limit decided upon  by  the  Regional Transport  Authority.  In the present appeals, the  Regional Transport Authority in many cases fixed the limit of  number of stage carriage permits on the same day on which it  heard the  applications for the grant of permits  and  representa- tions  in  connection  therewith.   The  Regional  Transport Authority fixed the limit of number of stage carnage permits at a sitting separate from and prior to the sitting at which the Regional Transport Authority heard the applications  for grant   of   permits  and  representations   in   connection therewith. The  present  appeals are all governed by the  Madras  Motor Vehicles Rules.  The Act under section 64 confers ’a-  right of  appeal against an order under section 47(3) of the  Act, The  Madras Motor Vehicles Rules framed under section 68  of the  Act  confer a right of appeal against  an  order  under section 47 (3 of the Act.  Section 64(i) of the Act  confers a  right of appeal against an order as may be prescribed  by the Rules.  That is how the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules have prescribed   appeals  against  several  orders   which   are otherwise  not mentioned as appealable orders under  section 64  of the Act.  The result is that according to the  Madras Motor  Vehicles  Rule there is a separate  right  of  appeal against an order under section 47(3) of the Act. In  the  present appeals none of the parties  preferred  any appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against any order  under  section  47  (3)  of  the  Act.   The  parties preferred appeals only against refusal to grant permit.   In those  appeals  against refusal to grant  permit  though  no specific  ground  was taken as to absence of a  valid  order under section 47(3) of the Act the State Transport Appellate Tribunal  in  some cases allowed the parties  to  advance  a contention  in  that  behalf and in other  cases  the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal suo motu went into the question as to whether there was a valid order under-section 47 (3  ) of  the  Act.   The jurisdiction  of  the  State  Transport- Appellate  ’Tribunal in appeals under section 64 of the  Act against  refusal  to grant permit is confined only  to  that aspect.    The  jurisdiction  of  the   Regional   Transport Authority in the matter of orders under section 47(3) of the Act  is entirely separate from jurisdiction of the  Regional Transport  Authority in the matter of grant and  refusal  of permit under sections 48 and 57 of the Act.  The distinction between the two jurisdictions is so well demarcated that (1)  [1963] 3 S.C.R. 487 this  Court in Abdul Mateen’s case(1) said that neither  the Regional Transport Authority at the time of grant of  permit nor  the  State  Transport  Appellate  Tribunal  in  hearing appeals against refusal to grant permit could modify  orders under section 47(3) of the Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 24  

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal however proceeded  in the present appeals on the basis that the absence of a valid order  under  section  47  (3) of the  Act  would  rob.  the Regional  Transport Authority of its jurisdiction  to  grant permit.   In  the present appeals, it became a  question  of fact  as  to whether there was in each case an  order  under section  47(3)  of the Act.  The State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal  in some cases went into the records and held  that there  was no order in writing under section 47 (3)  of  the Act  as  to the limit of number of stage  carriage  permits. The  records however contain evidence that the Secretary  of the Regional Transport Authority on the basis of  statistics advised the Regional Transport Authority to open new  routes or  to  increase  the number of  permits  and  the  Regional Transport Authority thereafter proceeded on that basis.   In other  cases the Regional Transport Authority of  one  State agreed,  with  the Regional Transport Authority  of  another State   for  new  or  additional  permits   and   thereafter applications were considered.  An order under section  47(3) of  the Act is not a matter of mere form but  of  substance. When it became a question of fact as to whether the Regional Transport  Authority  fixed the limif of number  of  permits before the grant of permits,’ the State Transport  Appellate Tribunal  fell into the error of over-looking the  substance of  the matter.  We are of opinion that if from the  records of  the Regional Transport Authority it could be  spelt  out that  the  Regional Transport Authority fixed the  limit  of number  of permits for stage carriages before  the  Regional Transport   Authority   considered  the   applications   and representations for grant of permit, the Regional  Transport Authority then complied with the provisions of the  statute. In  the facts and circumstances of the present  appeals  all operators  competed for the grant of Permits aid  thereafter preferred  appeals  only  against the garnt  or  refusal  of permits We shall now deal with the appeals individually.                Civil Appeal No. 2322  to 1969 In  this appeal the State Transport Appellate  Tribunal  set aside  the grant of permit on the ground that there  was  no valid order under section 47(3) of the Act.  The High  Court also  took  the same view.  In the present  case  there  was proposal  based  on  statistics  to show  the  need  for  an additional  bus.   The Regional Transport  Authority  itself invited applications under section 57(2) of the Act for  the grant of an additional permit on the route.  It 488 is significant that there was no application by any operator for the grant of an additional permit but that the  Regional Transport  Authority itself under section 57(2) of  the  Act invited  applications for the grant of an additional  permit and  appointed dates for reception of applications  in  that behalf.   This invitation of applications indicates  in  the facts  and circumstances of the case that there was a  valid determination  under  section  47(3)  of  the  Act  for   an additional  permit on the route.  Therefore, this appeal  is allowed  and the matter is remitted to the  State  Transport Appellate  Tribunal  for hearing on merits  of  the  appeals before the said Authority.                Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 1969 The State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that there  was no  valid  order  under  section 47(3)  of  the  Act  before considering  applications  for grant of permits.   The  High Court also upheld the view.  This was a case of a new route. In this case there was a notification under section 57(2) of the Act asking for applications for the grant of a permit on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 24  

the  new  route.  This will, in our  opinion  indicate  that there  was a determination of the limit of number  of  stage carnage  permits under section 47(3) of the Act.  The  State Transport  Appellate Tribunal also’ ’considered the  appeals on  merits and held that M/s.  M. K. S. &  Brothers,  Mettur Dam  was the best Stated person for the permit.  In view  of that  decision,  the  appeal Is allowed and  the  matter  is remitted  to the High Court to deal with the application  on merits  on  the  basis that there is  a  valid  order  under section 47(3) of the Act.                Civil Appeal No. 2324 of 1969 The  State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that there  was no  valid  order under section 47(3)of the  Act.   The  High Court  was of the same view.  This appeal relates to  a  new town route No. 2 Nagapatinam.  The records indicate that the Regional  Transport  Authority first limited the  number  of buses to be put on the route to one.  We are of opinion that having done so, the Regional Transport Authority  thereafter dealt  with  applications for grant of  permit.   The  State Transport Appellate Tribunal did not deal with the merits of the case.  The appeal is therefore allowed and the matter is remitted  to  the State Transport Appellate Tribunal  to  be dealt with on merits.                Civil Appeal No. 2326 of 1969 The High Court was of opinion that there was no valid  order under  section  47(3) of the Act and allowed  the  petition. The ’State Appellate Tribunal found that there was in fact a valid   ,order  under  section  47  (3)  of  the  Act.    An application for permit 489 was  made by the appellant suo motu and  representations  in connection  therewith were submitted.  Before  the  Regional Transport  Authority the serious contest was as  to  whether there  was  a  need  for  an  additional  bus.   The   other contention was that the permit should not have been  granted to the appellant on his application which was made suo motu. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that there  was a  need for a bus and that the Regional Transport  Authority after  receipt of the appellant’s applications had  notified the  same  and  asked  for  representations  in   connection therewith.   The State Transport Appellate  Tribupnal  found that  there was in-fact a determination for the grant of  an additional  bus  and  upheld the grant.  In  the  facts  and circumstances  of the case it would ’be proper to hold  that there  was  a valid order under section 47 (3) of  the  Act. The   Regional   Transport  Authority   decided   upon   the introduction  of a new bus on the route and then dealt  with the  grant.   The High Court was in error  in  holding  that there  was  no valid order under section 47(3) of  the  Act. The appeal is therefore allowed.                Civil Appeal No. 2327 of 1969 The  State Transport-Appellate Tribunal held that there  was no valid order under- section 47 (3 ) of the Act.  The  High Court  upheld that view.  This was opening of a  new  route. The Regional Transport Authority under section 57(2) of  the Act  invited applications for a bus to be put on  the  route for  the  first time.  We hold that this will  amount  to  a valid order under section 47 (3) of the Act for introduction of one permit.  We are also of opinion that applications for "a  bus  permit"  would amount to  one  permit.   The  State Transport  Appellate  Tribunal set aside the permit  of  the appellant and did not deal with the merits.  The, appeal  is allowed  and  the case is remitted to  the  State  Transport Appellate Tribunal to be decided on merits.                Civil Appeal No. 2328 of 1969

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 24  

This appeal relates to permits on inter-regional route.   We have already held earlier that in the case of inter-regional permit section 47(3) of the Act will not apply.  If  however effect can be given to the concept inherent in section 47(3) of  the  Act by having agreement between the regions  as  to permits, it will appear that in the present case there was a notification  under  section 57 (2) of the Act  asking  for’ applications  for one vehicle as "an additional bus  on  the route  Coimbatore to Ootacamund via Mettupalayam" The  State Transport  Appellate Tribunal held that there was  no  valid order  under section 47(3) of the Act.  In our  opinion,  in the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular it being a case of an additional bus a notification under 490 section 57(2) of the Act for the grant of an additional  bus on  the ruote will amount to a valid order.  The  appeal  is therefore  allowed  and the case is remitted  to  the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with on merits. Civil Appeals Nos. 2332-2337 & 2343 to 2352 of 1969 These  appeals  relate in some cases to a permit  on  a  new route and in other cases an additional permit on an existing route.  Civil Appeals No. 2335, 2336, 2344, 2350 and 2351 of 1969  relate  to permits on new routes.  The  other  appeals relate to additional permit on existing route in each  case. The  State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that there  was no  valid  order under section 47(3) of the Act.   The  High Court upheld that view.  The facts establish that  intensive traffic survey was conducted on the routes.  Thereafter, the Secretary,  Regional  Transport  Authority  recommended   an additional  bus  on  the  route.   This  recommendation  was approved  by  the Regional Transport  Authority.   Thereupon notification under section 57(2) of the Act was made  asking for  applications  for the grant of stage  carriage  permit. The  combination of circumstances, namely, the  approval  by the  Regional Transport Authority of the  recommendation  of the  Secretary for the introduction of an additional bus  on the  existing  route and the consequent  notification  under section 57 (2) of the Act asking for applications for  grant of  an additional permit on the said route in each  case  in our opinion establishes a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act in each case. In  Civil Appeal No. 2335 of 1969 there was a  proposal  for the opening of a new town service route.  Applications under section 57(2) of the Act were invited for the new town route No.  3. Furthermore, the minutes of the  Regional  Transport Authority  indicate  that the Regional  Transport  Authority limited the number of stage carriage permits to "one for the present" before the said Authority proceeded to consider the applications  for  grant  of  permit.   The  invitation   of applications under section 57(2) of the Act for a permit  on a new route in the context of facts and circumstances of the case establishes that there was a valid order under  section 47(3) of the Act. In Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 1969 the minutes of the Regional Transport Authority indicate that the Authority limited  the number  of stage carriage permits to one and thereafter  the Authority considered the applications for grant of  permits. The other features are similar to those of Civil  Appeal-No. 2335 of 1969. In  Civil Appeal No. 2337 of 1969 there was first a  sitting of  the  Regional Transport Authority on 9  March,  1968  to consider the proposal to introduce an additional service  on the route.  The                             491 Regional  Transport  Authority  decided  to  introduce   two

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 24  

additional  buses  on  the  route.  On the  same  day  at  a separate sitting the applications for grant of permits  were considered.   The  State Transport Appellate  Tribunal  held that  since  an  order under section 47(3) of  the  Act  was appealable  sufficient time should have elapsed between  the order  under section 47(3) of the Act and the  consideration of  applications for the grant of permit in order to  enable an  aggrieved person to prefer an appeal.  This question  is of  no importance in the present case because  parties  were allowed  to  challenge the entire  proceeding.   Ordinarily, both orders are appealable and order under section 47(3)  of the Act is made prior to notification under section 57(2) of the  Act  or of publication of  applications  under  section 57(3)  of  the Act.  We, therefore, hold that  there  was  a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act in this appeal. In Civil Appeal No. 2343 of 1969 there was traffic survey on the   existing  route.   There  was  a  proposal  based   on statistics for the need of an additional bus.   Applications were  invited  under  section  57(2)  of  the  Act  for   an additional  bus.   The  Regional  Transport  Authority  also decided  upon  the  need  for an  additional  bus  prior  to consideration  of the applications for the grant of  permit. Therefore,  in the facts and circumstances of this  case  it can be held that there was a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act. In  Civil Appeals No. 2345, 2346, 2347, 2348, 2349 and  2352 of  1969 the facts are similar to those discussed  in  Civil Appeals No. 2337 and 2343 of 1969 and we are of opinion that in each case there was a valid order under section 47(3)  of the Act.  Civil Appeals No. 2350 and 2351 of 1969 relate  to a  bus on new routes and the facts are similar to  those  in Civil  Appeals  No.  2335 and 2336 of 1969  and  we  are  of opinion  that  there was, in each case a valid  order  under section 47(3) of the Act. These appeals are allowed and the cases are remitted to  the State  Transport  Appellate  Tribunal to be  dealt  with  on merits. Civil Appeals No. 2338-2342, 2353-2362 & 2368 of 1969 In  these  appeals the State  Transport  Appellate  Tribunal held’  that there was no valid order under section 47(3)  of the Act.  The, High Court was also of the same view.   Civil Appeals  No. 2338, 2340, 2341, 2342, 2355, 2359 to  2362  of 1969 relate to a bus on a new route in each case.  The other appeals  relate  to additional bus on an existing  route  in each case. In Civil Appeals’ No. 2338, 2340, 2341 and 2342 of 1969  the Regional Transport Authority issued notifications under sec- 492 tion  57 (2) of the Act inviting applications for  grant  of stage   ,carriage   permit  on   the   routes.    Thereafter notifications  were issued under section 57 (3) of the  Act. These  appeals  relate to a new route in each  case.   Civil Appeals No. 2355, 2359-2362 of 1969 also relate to a bus  on a new route in each case.  In these ,appeals new routes were opened  by the Regional Transport Authority after  examining public representations and notifications under section 57(2) of  the  Act  were also  issued.   The  notifications  under section  57  (2) of the Act inviting  applications  for  new routes establish that there was a valid order under  section 47(3) of the Act in each case. Civil  Appeals  No. 2339, 2353, 2354, 2356, 2357,  2358  and 2368  of  1969 relate in each base to an additional  bus  on existing route.  An additional bus on an existing route  has characteristics  similar to that of a new route.   In  Civil Appeals No. 2356 and 2357 of 1969 two additional permits  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 24  

the  existing  route  were  decided  upon  by  the  Regional Transport  Authority  pursuant to the note of  the  Regional Transport Authority asking for increase.  Applications  were invited on that basis.  In all these appeals a  notification was   issued  under  section  57(2)  of  the  Act   inviting applications for permit.  Thereafter notifications were made under  section 57(3) of the Act inviting representations  in connection with the applications for grant of permit.,  Each applicant claimed for permit pursuant to notification issued under  section 57(2) of the Act.  Furthermore,  introduction of  an  additional bus on the existing route was made  as  a result  of intensive traffic survey conducted prior  thereto and  recommendation  of  the Secretary for  increase  of  an additional  bus and the approval by the Regional  ’Transport Authority  of  the proposal of the Secretary.   The  notifi- cation under section 57(2) of the, Act inviting applications for  permit  is  to be judged in  the  background  of  these features.   Therefore,  in the facts  and  circumstances  of these appeals it is just and proper- to hold that there  was a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act in each case. All these appeals are-allowed and the cases are remanded  to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for dealing with  the appeals on merits.             Civil Appeals No. 2378-2380 of 1969 These  three  appeals  relate  to  new  routes.   The  State Transport  Appellate Tribunal held that there was  no  valid order  under section 47(3) of the Act.  The High Court  also took  the  same  view.  In all these  appeals  there  was  a notification under section 57(2) of the Act for the grant of a  permit on each of the routes mentioned in these  appeals. A notification under section-57(2) of 493 the  Act  inviting application for one permit  on  each  new route,in  our  opinion, indicates that there  was  an  order under section 47(3) of the Act.  These appeals are therefore allowed  and the Cases are remitted to the  State  Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with on merits. Civil Appeals No. 2409, 2452, 2453-2457 of 1969 In Civil Appeals No. 2409 and 2456 of 1969 a new route  was. opened  in each case with permits for two buses.  There  was first  intensive traffic survey under the authority  of  the Regional   Transport  Officer.   Thereafter,  the   Regional Transport Authority issued notifications under section 57(2) of the Act inviting, applications for the grant of two stage carriage  permits to run on each route forming  the  subject matters  of  these appeals.   These  notifications  inviting applications for two permits on new routes in each case,  in our  opinion,  show  that there  has  been  compliance  with section 47(3) of the Act and in the facts and  circumstances of  the case there was a valid order under section 47(3)  of the.  Act in each case. In Civil Appeal No. 2452 of 1969 there was a traffic  survey by  the Regional Transport Officer who put up a note to  the Regional  Transport Authority and suggested introduction  of four  additional  buses.  The Regional  Transport  Authority agreed  and  directed that the concurrence of  the  Regional Transport Authority North Act be obtained because a  portion of  the  route lay within, the latter’s  jurisdiction.   The Regional   Transport   Authority,   North   Arcot    granted concurrence  for two permits.  Applications were  thereafter called  for  two permits.  We have already  said  that  the. terms  of  section  47(3)  of the  Act  will  not  apply  to interregional  permits.   In  the  case  of   inter-regional permits  a  decision of the limit of number  of  permits  is established  by  the-concurrence of two  Regional  Transport

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 24  

Authorities  in that behalf.  In this appeal that  was  done and thereafter a notification under section 57(2) of the Act inviting applications for grant of two permits was made.  We are of opinion that the notification under section 57(2)  of the Act in the context of the features mentioned amounts  to a valid order fixing the number of permits. In  Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 1969 there were  public  repre- sentations   to  open  a  new  route  between   Cheyyar   to Brahmadesam  covering a distance of 18 miles.  The  Regional Transport  Authority thereafter invited  applications  under section  57(2)  of the Act.  The State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal  held that there wasn’t valid order  under  section 47(3)  of the Act.  The High Court also took the same  view. The  High  Court gave an additional reason that it  did  not appear that the Regional Transport Autho- 494 rity  took into consideration matters mentioned  in  clauses (a)  to  (f ) of section 47 (1) of the Act.  This is  a  new route.   The  notification under section 57(2)  of  the  Act considered in that back,ground establishes that there was  a valid  order under section 47 (3 ) of the Act.   Unless  the order  gives  reasons it is not possible to rip it  open  to find out what weighed with the Regional Transport Authority. In Civil Appeals No. 2454 and 2455 of 1969 there was in each case  an additional permit on the existing route.  In  Civil Appeal  No.  2454  of 1969 the  Secretary  of  the  Regional Transport  Authority,  North  Arcot  after  traffic   survey proposed  to the Regional Transport Authority.  North  Arcot for the grant of an additional stage carriage permit on  the route.   The  Regional  Transport  Authority,  North   Arcot approved  the proposal and as the route was partly in  South Arcot,  the concurrence of the Regional Transport  Authority of  South  Arcot  was obtained.   Thereafter,  the  Regional Transport  Authority, North Arcot invited  applications  for the grant of an additional permit.  The High Court held that there  was  no valid order under section 47 (3) of  the  Act because  it  could  not  be  predicated  that  the  Regional Transport Authority had considered all the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of section 47 ( 1 ) of the Act.  It is not  possible  to  find reference to  consideration  of  the matters  in  the  order.  Suffice it to  say  that  the  two Regional Transport Authorities concurred in the proposal  of an  additional  permit  and  thereafter  applications   were invited  under section 57(2) of the Act.  We are of  opinion that there was a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act. In  Civil  Appeal  No. 2455 of 1969 the  appellant  made  an application  to the Regional Transport Authority,  Salem  in September, 1963 for the grant, of a stage carriage permit on the route Kaveripatnam to Tirupethur.  That application  was treated  as  a proposal under section 47(1) of the  Act  and representations  were  invited.   Thereafter,  the  Regional Transport  Authority rejected the proposal.  An  appeal  was made to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.  The  appeal was  allowed.  The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,  held that there was need for the grant of a stage carriage permit and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.  Thereafter an application was made to the High Court against the  order of  the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.  The High  Court dismissed the petition observing that the Regional Transport Authority  should satisfy itself about the condition of  the roads and that the appellant should be granted the permit in accordance  with  law.  The matter then came up  before  the Regional  Transport Authority and it granted the  permit  to the  appellant.   There was an appeal against the  grant  of permit  to  the  appellant  and refusal  of  permit  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 24  

respondent.  The State 495 Transport  Appellate Tribunal held that there was  no  valid order  under  section  47 (3) of the Act.   The  High  court agreed with the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.  We  are of opinion that there was a decision of the State  Transport Appellate  Tribunal  to the effect that there was  need  for grant of a stage carriage permit.  The High Court also  held that  view.   The  Regional  Transport  Authority  satisfied itself  about the condition of the roads in accordance  with the  directions  of the High Court and then dealt  with  the matter  of grant of permit.  All these  features  considered along with the fact that this was a new route and there  was also  notification under section 57(2) of the Act  establish that there was a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act. In Civil Appeal No. 2457 of 1969 the State Transport  Appel- late  Tribunal  held  that there was no  valid  order  under section  47  (3) of the Act and the High Court  upheld  that view.  The Regional Transport Authority invited applications under  section  57(2) of the Act for the grant  of  a  stage carriage  permit on a new route.  This notification  in  the facts and circumstances of the case indicates that there was an  order under section 47(3) of the Act for the grant of  a stage carriage permit on the new route. These  appeals in this group are allowed and the  cases  are remitted  to  the State Transport Appellate Tribunal  to  be dealt with on merits. Civil Appeals No. 2478-2479 of 1969 Civil Appeal No. 2478 of  1969 relates to what is  described as  inter-State route between Madras and  Pondicherry.   The State  Transport Appellate Tribunal held that there  was  no valid order under section 47(3) of the Act.  The High  Court upheld  that view.  We have already held that section  47(3) of  the  Act  does not apply  to  inter-State  permits.   If however any determination of the limit of number of  permits in regard to inter-State permits is necessary it is to  find out  whether the two States have concurred in  the  proposal for  a  new route or an additional bus on the route  as  the case may v.  This appeal relates to a new inter-State route. The two State authorities agreed and thereafter notification under   section   57(2)  of  the  Act  was   made   inviting applications  for the grant of permit on the new route.   We are of opinion that there was a valid order for the grant of permit.  In  Civil  Appeal No. 2479 of 1969 the  Regional  Transport Authority, South Arcot granted a permit to-the appellant  on the route Pondicherry to Mylam.  The Transport Commissioner, Madras  Region,  wrote  to the  State  Transport  Authority, Pondicherry  that  the Regional Transport  Authority,  South Arcot  had approved the proposal for opening of a new  route from Pondicherry 496 to  Mylam via Thiruchitrabalam and asked for concurrence  in the proposal in pursuance of the principles of agreement for sharing the permits by both the States.  The State Transport Authority, Pondicherry granted concurrence.  Thereafter, the Regional   Transport   Authority,   South   Arcot    invited applications under section 57 (2) of the Act. Apart  from the consideration that section 47(3) of the  Act does  not apply, it is abundantly clear that the two  States agreed  to  the  grant of a permit  in  each  appeal.   Both appeals  relate  to inter-State permits.   The  appeals  are allowed  and the cases are remitted to the State,  Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt ,With on merits. Civil Appeals No. 2485 and 2486 of 1969

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 24  

The High Court upheld the view of the State Transport Appel- late Tribunal that there was no valid order under section 47 (3)  of  the  Act  in each  case.   The  Regional  Transport Authority was of the view that there was need for opening  a new route and a notification under section 57(2) of the  Act was made inviting applications.  This being a new route,  we hold that there was a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act.  The appeals are allowed and the cases are remitted  to the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with  on merits. Civil Appeals No. 2518-2520 & 2523 of 1969 In these appeals the High Court held that there was no valid order under section 47(3) of the Act and upheld the view  of the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal.  Civil  Appeal  No. 2518 of 1969 relates to an additional stage carriage permit. There  was  a notification under section 57(2)  of  the  Act inviting  applications  for  an  additional  stage  carriage permit.   This  notification  in the context  of  facts  and circumstances  of  the  case  indicates  that  there  was  a decision  under section 47(3) of the Act for  an  additional stage carriage permit.  Civil Appeals No. 2519-2520 and 2523 of  1969  relate to new routes.  In each case  there  was  a notification  under  section  57(2)  of  the  Act   inviting applications.   We  are of opinion that there  was  a  valid order  under  section 47 (3) of the Act in each  case.   The appeals are therefore allowed and the cases are remitted  to the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with  on merits. Civil Appeals No. 2524 and 2532 of 1969 In  these two appeals the High Court upheld the view of  the State  Transport Appellate Tribunal that there was no  valid order  under section 47(3) of the Act.  In Civil Appeal  No. 2524  of 1969 the Regional Transport Officer asked  for  the introduction of an 49 7 additional  bus  because  of heavy  traffic.   The  Regional Transport  Authority approved the, proposal  and  thereafter invited  applications under section 57(2) of the  Act.   The High  Court held that the Regional Transport  Authority  did not "pay attention to all the matters" mentioned in  section 47(1) of the Act.  Civil Appeal No. 2532 of 1969 relates  to a  new  route.   There  was a  proposal  of  the  Secretary, Regional  Transport  Authority to open the new  route.   The Regional  Transport  Authority  approved  the  proposal  and thereafter  invited applications under section 57(2) of  the Act.  There was a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of each case.  These  appeals are  therefore  allowed and the cases are  remitted  to  the State  Transport  Appellate  Tribunal to be  dealt  with  on merits. Civil Appeals No. 2575, 2576 and 2584 of 1969. Civil  Appeal No. 2575 of 1969 relates to a  stage  carriage permit  on  a  new route.   The  State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal  held that there was no valid order  under  section 47(3)  of  the Act.  The High Court upheld that  view.   The Regional   Transport   Authority,   North   Arcot.   invited applications  for  the stage carriage permit  on  the  route Perampattu  to  Perampattu via  Vishamangalam,  Tiruppathur, Vengalapuram  and  Kurisalpattu, covering a distance  of  19 miles   2  furlongs.   The  route  was  opened  because   of representations  by  the public.   The  Secretary,  Regional Transport  Authority  examined  the question and  put  up  a proposal before the Regional Transport Authority to open the route.   The  Regional  Transport  Authority,  North   Arcot approved the proposal of the Secretary.  Notification  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 24  

section  57(2)  of  the Act  invited  applications  for  one permit.   We  are of opinion that there was  a  valid  order under   section   47(3)  of  the  Act  in  the   facts   and circumstances of the case. Civil  Appeal No. 2576 of 1969 relates to a  stage  carriage permit on an existing route.  The State Transport  Appellate Tribunal  as  well as the High Court was of  the  view  that there  was  no valid order under section 47(3) of  the  Act. There  was  a notification under section 57(2)  of  the  Act inviting  applications  for a stage  carriage  permit.   The Regional  Transport Authority further first fixed the  limit of  number of permits and thereafter dealt with the  permit. We are of opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act. Civil  Appeal No. 2584 of 1969 relates to a new route.   The High Court upheld the view of the State Transport  Appellate Tribunal  that there was no valid order under section  47(3) of  the  Act.   There was an application  for  permit.   The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot invited applications  under  section 57(2) of the  Act.   Thereafter application was published and’ 13 Sup.  C. I./70---3 498 representations  were asked for under section 57(3)  of  the Act.   We are of opinion that there was a valid order  under section 47(3) ,of the Act. These appeals are allowed and the cases are remitted to  the State  Transport  Appellate  Tribunal to be  dealt  with  on merits  on  the footing that there was a valid  order  under section 47(3) of the Act. Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 1969 This  appeal-relates to an additional stage carriage  permit on  the route Periakulam to Madurai.  The High Court  upheld the  view  of the State Transport  Appellate  Tribunal  that there  was  no valid Order under section 47(3) of  the  Act. There  was  traffic  survey of the  route.   The  Secretary, Regional  Transport Authority invited applications  for  the grant of permit under section 57(2) ,of the Act.  We are  of opinion that there was a valid order under section 47(3)  of the  Act  in the facts and circumstances of the  case.   The appeal  is allowed and the matter is remitted to  the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with on merits. Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1970 This  appeal  relates to an additional bus on  the  existing route.   The  High  Court  upheld  the  view  of  the  State Transport  Appellate Tribunal that there was no valid  order under  section  47(3) of the Act.  The  Secretary,  Regional Transport  Authority  made traffic  survey,  and  thereafter submitted  a proposal for the introduction of an  additional bus on the route.  The Regional Transport Authority approved the proposal and published notifications under section 57(2) of  the Act inviting applications for the grant of  a  stage carriage  permit.  We are of opinion that there was a  valid order  under  section  47(3)  of the  Act.   The  appeal  is therefore  allowed  and the case, is remitted to  the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with on merits. Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1970 This  appeal  relates to an additional bus on  the  existing route.  The position is similar to that of Civil Appeal  No. 8  of 1970 and for the same reasons we are of  opinion  that there was a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act.  The appeal  is therefore allowed and the matter is  remitted  to the  State Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with  on merits. In these appeals, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 24  

of  the  view that there was no valid  order  under  section 47(3)  of  the Act:.  The High Court upheld that  view.   In some  cases the absence of a formal order under  section  47 (3) of the Act was held to be an infraction of section 47(3) of  the Act.  We have held that it is not the form  but  the substance of the order which will have to 4 99 be found out by looking into the facts and circumstances  of each case.  Judged by that test we have found that where the Regional  Transport  Authority approves a  proposal  of  the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to open a new  route or  to  have an additional permit on an existing  route  and thereafter  notifications under section 57(2) of the Act are made  in respect of grant of a permit on a new route  or  an additional permit on an existing route it can be  reasonably held  in the totality of facts and circumstances that  there has  been  a  valid order under section 47(3)  of  the  Act. Similarly,  in  the case of inter-State  and  inter-regional permits  where  the two regions have agreed- to open  a  new route or an additional bus and applications are  accordingly invited  for  the grant of permit. apart from  our  decision that  section  47(3)  of the Act does not  apply  to,  these inter-State  and  inter-regional routes, we are  of  opinion that  it  can  be reasonably held that  there  has  been  by agreement  of different States or regions, as the  case  may be:,  an  order deciding upon the number of  permits  before granting the same. The  next question is as to the effect of  the  notification under  section  57(2)  of  the Act.   This  Court  in  Abdul Mateen’s  case(1) held that an advertisement  under  section 57(2) of the Act inviting applications for a new route would indicate  a  decision of the  Regional  Transport  Authority under section 47(3) of the Art that the number specified  in the  advertisement would be the limit fixed.  This  decision has  not  been  noticed by  the  State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal.  In the same case this Court held that in the case of  advertisement  in respect of an old route it  would  not necessarily mean that was the number fixed.  The instance of an additional bus on an existing route was not considered in Abdul Mateen’s case(1).  In our opinion a notification under section  5  7 (2) of the Act inviting applications  for  the grant  of a permit for an additional bus on existing  routes in  the background of entire facts and circumstances of  the present  appeals  indicates  that  the  Regional   Transport Authority  had  in  each case arrived at  a  decision  under section  47(3)  of  the Act as to the  limit  of  number  of permits as mentioned in the notification. Before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as well as  in the High Court there was some doubt as to the point of  time when an order under section 47(3) of the Act would. have  to be made, namely, whether it would be before applications are made for grant of permit or whether it could be valid if  it were  made before grant of a permit.  Section 57(2)  of  the Act  in  relation to stage carriage permits  specifies  that applications  shall  be made for the grant of a  permit  not less  than six weeks before the date on which it is  desired that  the permit shall take effect.  In such a case it  will not be possible for the Regional Transport Authority to  fix the  limit  of number of permits  before  ’applications  are made. (1)  [1963] 3 S.C.R. 523. 5 00 On  the other hand, where the Regional  Transport  Authority appoints   dates   for  the  receipt  of   applications   as contemplated  in  section  57(2)  of  the  Act  it  may   be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 24  

justifiable  to hold that the Regional  Transport  Authority before  publishing  the  dates  for  the  receipt  of   such application  for grant of stage carriage permit will  decide the number of stage carriage permits to be granted. This  Court in M/s Jaya Ram Motor Service case(1) said  that the  Authority has first to fix the limit and  after  having done so it will consider the application or  representations in  connection therewith in accordance with  the,  procedure laid down in section 57 of the Act.  In that decision  there is another observation that the Regional Transport Authority having  fixed  the limit publishes. the  applications  under section  57(3)  of  the Act.   Before  the  State  Transport Appellate Tribunal and the High Court it was contended  that this  Court in R.  Obliswami Naidu’s case (2 )  referred  to two  independent  steps in connection with the  grant  of  a permit  the  first being the determination by  the  Regional Transport  Authority under section 47(3) of the Act for  the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted and the second being that "thereafter applications for stage carriage  permits  should be entertained" and  therefore  it would mean that before applications, could be received there should  be a determination under section 47(3) of  the  Act. That Position, is’ made clear by the following  observations of this Court in Obliswami Naidu’s case(1)               "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  taken               by  the Appellate Tribunal and the High  Court               is the correct view". It  is  in this context that this Court  said  in  Obliswami Naidu’s  case(1)  that the limit could not be fixed  at  the time of consideration of applications because thereby public interest  might not gain the dominant consideration  and  on the   contrary  the  decision  of  the  Regional   Transport Authority might be influenced (1)  Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1965 decided on 27-10-1967. (2)  Civil Appeal No. 727 of 1965 decided on 22-3-1968. 5 0 1 by  personal  consideration  of  or  predilection  for   the applicants.  There should not be any room for elasticity  of the  number  of  permits at the  time  of  consideration  of applications for the grant.  It is in the scheme of the  Act that  limit should be fixed before the grant of  permit  and proper  effect can be given to these provisions by  deciding upon the limit of number of permits before applications  for grant of permits are invited under section 57(2) of the  Act and in other cases before applications for grant of  permits are  published  under  section 57(3) of the  Act  to  enable persons  to make representations.  The central idea is  that applicants  and those who will make  representations  should all  know  the limit of number of permits to be  granted  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 24  

order to ensure free and fair competition. In  some  of the present appeals, the High Court  held  that where  order  under section 47(3) of the Act was made  at  a sitting  on  the same day on which  the  Regional  Transport Authority considered the applications for grant of  Permits, there  was  not sufficient space of time between  the  order under  section 47(3) of the Act and the order for the  grant of  permit  and  thereby persons aggrieved  by  order  under section  47(3) of the Act could not prefer any  appeal.   We have  already  pointed  out that the  provision  for  appeal against  an  order  under section 47(3) of  the  Act  is  an adequate  answer.   Furthermore  in  some  of-  the  present appeals  all  parties  competed  for  the  grant  and  never challenged  the proceedings on the ground that there was  no order  under section 47 (3) of the Act and were  allowed  by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to question the  want of  a valid order of limit of number of permits.   Therefore in  these cases the matter is of no importance.   These  are special features in some of the present appeals.  These will not happen when the Regional Transport Authority will decide the  limit  before  notification  under  section  57(2)   or publication of application under section 57(3) of the Act as the case may be. In our opinion, the provisions of the Act in regard to stage carriage  permits have the following consequences.   If  the Regional Transport Authority were to appoint a date- for the receipt  of  applications for the grant  of  stage  carriage permits,  the  Regional Transport Authority should  fix  the limit  of the number of permits which might be  granted  and then notify the same under section 57 (2). of the Act.   If, on  the  other hand, applications were sent by  persons  suo motu for the grant of permit the, applications would have to be published and the representations would have to be  asked for.   The proviso to section 5 7 (3) of the  Act  furnishes the  answer  that if the grant of any permit  in  accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of permits beyond the limit fixed under section 47(3) of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority might summarily refuse the 5 02 application  without  following the procedure laid  down  in section  5 7 of the Act.  In other cases, the  proper  stage for  fixing the limit under section, 47(3) of the Act  would be after applications are received and before the same would be  published  under  section 57(3) of the  Act  asking  for representations.    If   however  the   Regional   Transport Authority would not increase or modify the number of permits which already exist, the grant of an application would  mean transgressing  the limit fixed, and procedure laid  down  in section 57(3) of the Act need not then be followed.  On  the other  hand, if the Regional Transport Authority on  receipt of  applications would decide upon the limit of permits  and the grant thereof would be within the limit prescribed  then the  procedure laid down in section 57 (3) of the Act  would be  followed.   Though this scheme of the statute  which  is outlined  here has not been followed in all the  appeals  in the present case, we have found that the Regional  Transport Authority in some cases fixed the limit of number of permits before it actually considered the applications for grant  of permit and all parties competed for the grant on that  basis and  no one expressed any grievance at that time.  The  con- tention  as to validity of order under section 47(3) of  the Act was raised subsequently at the time of hearing of appeal against  refusal  or permit.  We have found that  there  was notification under section 57(2) of the Act and we have held

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 24  

in the facts and circumstances of the case that there was  a valid order under section 47(3) of the Act.  In few cases it was said that the order of fixing the limit was done at  the same  sitting  along with the hearing but in the  facts  and circumstances  of those particular cases we have found  that there  was  a notification under section 57(2)  of  the  Act inviting applications for the rant of permits on new  routes or additional bus On existing routes, and it could therefore be  held in those case that, there was a valid  order  under section 47(3) of the Act. The  parties  in all the appeals will bear their  own  costs because  of the special features in these cases.  First,  no appeal  was preferred against any order under section  47(3) of  the Act.  Secondly, the point was canvassed  before  the State  Transport Appellate Tribunal without specific  ground in  that  behalf.   Thirdly, all parties  competed  for  the permit  on  the  basis of the limit fixed  by  the  Regional Transport  Authority  and the decision in  that  behalf  was conveyed to all the parties.  Finally, the, State  Transport Appellate  Tribunal  did  not deal with the  merits  of  the appeals  pending before the said Authority and  the  matters are remitted to that Authority.  In other cases where either the appeal has been allowed or the matter is remitted to the High Court, the parties will bear their own costs. V.P.S. 5 0 3