http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: R. SRIHARI NAIDU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/02/1985

BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. KHALID, V. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  864            1985 SCR  (2) 804  1985 SCC  (2) 337        1985 SCALE  (1)405

ACT:       Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 57 (2)-Permits granted by Regional Transport  Authority invalidated  on the  ground of improper  constitution  of  the  RTA-RTA    reconstituted-No Notification issued for inviting fresh applications-Grant of permits on  the basis  of applications received in pursuance of the earlier Notification -Whether invalid-

HEADNOTE:      An order  granting two  stage carriage  permits by  the Regional Transport  Authority was set aside in appeal on the ground that  the RTA  had  not  been  properly  constituted. Thereafter, the  Regional Transport Authority, on its proper constitution, did not issue a fresh Notification u/s. 57 (2) of the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 inviting fresh applications but granted  a stage carriage permit to the appellant on the basis of  applications received  in pursuance of the earlier Notification. On  appeal by  the  aggrieved  applicants  the Appellate Authority  set aside  the said  order and  instead granted the  permit to  respondent No.  4.  The  appellant’s revision application  before  the  State  Government  having been failed,  he filed  a writ  petition in  the High  Court against the  order of  the State  Government on the grounds, (i) that  at the  time when  the  earlier  Notification  was issued u/s.  57(2), the delegation of power by the invalidly constituted  Authority   to  its  Secretary  to  issue  such Notification would  be invalid  and  therefore  the  further proceedings adopted  for consideration  of such applications and grant  of permits  pursuant to  such  consideration  was invalid; and  (ii) that  on   merits the Appellate Authority ought not  to have  interfered with  the five marks that had been granted  to the  appellant by  the  Regional  Transport Authority and reduced the same to three and further that the Appellate Authority  ought not  to have relied upon the only solitary adverse  entry in  the appellant’s record to reject his application  while preferring  that of respondent No. 4. The  High  Court  also  dismissed  the  writ  petition.  The appellant advanced  the same  contentions before the Supreme Court,       Dismissing the appeal, ^              HELD:  (1) The first contention is liable to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

rejected on  three grounds,  namely, (i) It was not disputed that applications  under s.  57 (2) of the Act for the grant of stage  carriage permits  could be  filed voluntarily  and without any  Notification being  issued in  that behalf.  If that be  so,  the  question  whether  a  fresh  Notification inviting fresh  applications  by  the  properly  constituted Regional 805 Transport Authority  ought to  have bean  issued or  not  or whether  the  properly  A  constituted  Regional  ’transport Authority could  proceed to  act on the earlier Notification issued by  the Secretary  would  be  immaterial  and  of  no consequence and  the ultimate  decision not  to grant  stage carriage permit to the appellant cannot be disturbed on this ground; (ii) The non-issuance of a fresh Notification by the properly constituted  Regional Transport Authority could, if at all, be made a ground of attack by those persons who were unable to make applications because of such non-issuance and not by  the appellant  who had  made an  application in that behalf and  who took  his chance to obtain the permit on the basis of his application which was in fact considered by the Regional Transport Authority and thereafter by the Appellate Authority; and  (iii) The  initial order granting the permit to the  appellant  was  passed  by  a  properly  constituted Regional Transport  Authority and  the appellate  order  was also passed  by State Transport Appellate Tribunal which was the properly  constituted Appellate Authority and both these authorities had  passed their  orders on  a consideration of the entire  material placed  before each  of them  and after giving a  full hearing  to the  appellant  and  as  such  no failure of justice had occassioned. [807C-F; H; 8U8A]       (2) This Court will not be justified in interfering in the matter on merits, since the High Court has rightly taken the view, (i) that the second contention really pertained to the merits  of the  claim of  the  appellant  to  the  stage carriage permit  and it could not interfere with the finding of fact  recorded against  the appellant  in that  behalf in exercise of  its extra-ordinary  jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the  Constitution; and (ii) that the grounds on which the marks of  the appellant  were reduced  and the  reasons  for ultimate  rejection  of  the  appellant’s  application  were justified. [808C-D]

JUDGMENT:       CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 874 of 1971       On appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 25-2-71 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 975/1969.       M. K. Ramamurthy and J. Ramamurthy for the Appellant.       T.  V. S.  N. Chari,  B. Parthasarthy,  A S-  Nambiar, Attar Singh and G. N. Rao for the Respondents.       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by       TULZAPURKAR,  J. In  April 1960 the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor,  acting under  s. 47  (3) of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 decided to open a new long distance route called Tada  to Tada  (ring route)  and fixed  the number of vehicles for which stage carriage permits would be issued at two on  that  route.  In  August  1960  a  Notification  was published under  s. 57  (2) of the Act inviting applications for the  grant of  two such  stage carriage permits. Several applications received in pursuance of such Notification were notified

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

806 under s.  57 (3)  on 18th  October, 1960  for submission  of representations in  connection therewith. Two permits-one to K.  Ramachandra  naidu  and  the  other  to  M/s  Associated Transports (Madras)  Private Limited,  were granted  by  the Regional  Transport   Authority  in   November   1960,   The unsuccessful  applicants  filed  appeals  to  the  Appellate Authority (STAT)  who s  t aside  the order granting the two permits on  the ground that the Regional Transport Authority itself had  not been properly constituted inasmuch as it did not comprise  a non-official  member as required by s. 44 of the Act and the matter was remanded. Thereafter the Regional Transport Authority  was properly  constituted by  including within it  a non-official  member. However,  after it was so properly constituted  the Regional  Transport Authority  did not issued  a fresh  Notification under  s. 57  (2) inviting fresh applications  but proceeded  to consider  the  several applications that  had been  received in  pursuance  of  the earlier Notification  issued under  s. 57  (2) and after re- affirming the necessity for the grant of two permits only on that route  granted two  stage carriage  permits one  to the appellant (R. Srihari Naidu) and the other to respondent No. 5 (M/s Navyandhra Labour Transport). In appeals preferred by the aggrieved  applicants  the  Appellate  Authority  (STAT) confirmed  the   grant  of  the  state  carriage  permit  to respondent No.  5 but  set aside  the permit  granted to the appellant and  instead granted  it to  respondent  No.4  (V. Janakirami Reddy).  The appellant  went in  revision to  the State  Government   against  the   order  of  the  Appellate Authority but the same was rejected by the State Government; in other  words the  grant of the permit to respondent No. 4 in place of the appellant was confirmed. The appellant moved the High Court by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution  and challenged  the  order  of  the  State Government passed in revision on 18th March, 1969.        Two  grounds  were  urged  in  support  of  the  Writ Petition: (a)  that after  the Regional  transport Authority had been properly constituted no Notification inviting fresh applications was  issued by that Authority but the authority only considered  those applications  which had been received by the  Secretary of the earlier Body-the Regional transport Authority invalidly constituted in breach of s. 44 under the authority that  had been  delegated  by  that  body  to  the Secretary the  contention being  that at  the time when such earlier Notification was issued under s.S7(2) the delegation of power  by such  invalidly constituted  Authority  to  its Secretary to  issue such  Notification would  be invalid and therefore, the further proceedings adopted for consideration of such applications and grant of permits pursuant to 807      such consideration  was invalid, and (b) that on merits the Appellate  Authority ought  not to  have interfered with the five marks that had been granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport  Authority and  reduced the same to three and further  that the  Appellate Authority ought not to have relied  upon   the  only   solitary  adverse  entry  in  the appellant’s  record   to  reject   his   application   while preferring that of respondent No. 4. The High Court rejected both the  contentions and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is this decision  of the High Court that has been challenged by the appellant before us in this appeal.       In  support of  the appeal  counsel for  the appellant pressed before  us the  self-same two  contentions that were urged  before   the  High  Court.  In  our  view  the  first contention is liable to be rejected on three grounds. In the

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

first place  it was  not disputed that applications under s. 57 (2)  of the  Act for  the grant of stage carriage permits could be  filed voluntarily  and  without  any  Notification being issued  in that  behalf If  that be  so  the  question whether a  fresh Notification inviting fresh applications by the properly  constituted Regional Transport Authority ought to  have   been  issued  or  not  or  whether  the  properly constituted Regional  Transport Authority  could proceed  to act on  the earlier  Notification issued  by  the  Secretary would be  immaterial and  of no consequence and the ultimate decision not to grant stage carriage permit to the appellant cannot be disturbed on this ground. Secondly in our view the non-issuance  of   a  fresh  Notification  by  the  properly constituted Regional  Transport Authority  could, if at all, be made  a ground of attack by those persons who were unable to make applications because of such non-issuance and not by the appellant who had made an application in that behalf and who took his chance to obtain the permit on the basis of his application which  was in  fact considered  by the  Regional Transport  Authority   and  thereafter   by  the   Appellate Authority. Thirdly sub-s.(2) of s. 134 of the Act provides:            "No  order made  by a  competent authority  under      this Act  shall be  reversed or  altered on  appeal  or      revision  on   account  of   any  error,   omission  or      irregularity in  the proceedings,  unless it appears to      the  prescribed   appellate  authority   or  revisional      authority, as  the case may be that such error omission      or irregularity  has, in  fact, occasioned a failure of      justice."      If was not disputed that the initial order granting the permit to the appellant was passed by a properly constituted Regional Transport 808 Authority and  the appellate  order was also passed by State Transport  Appellate   Tribunal  which   was  the   properly constituted Appellate  Authority and  both these Authorities had passed  their orders  on a  consideration of  the entire material placed  before each of them and after giving a full hearing to  the appellant and as such no failure of  justice had  occassioned;  therefore,  in  our  view  the  error  or omission that  is said  to have  taken place  in the instant case [of  there being no proper Notification issued inviting applications for  permits under  s.57 (2)1 can not be made a ground to  upset the final order that has been passed in the case.  On   these  grounds  the  first  contention  must  be rejected.       As  regards the  second contention it must be observed that the  High Court  has taken the view that the contention really pertained  to the  merits of  the claim  of the stage carriage permit  and it could not interfere with the finding of fact  recorded against  the appellant  in that  behalf in exercise of  its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under  Art. 226 of the  Constitution and  alternatively the  High Court  has also taken  the view  that the grounds on which the marks of the appellant  were reduced  and the  reasons  for  ultimate rejection of  the appellant’s  application  were  justified. Having regard  to this view of the High Court we do not feel that we should interfere in the matter on merits.       The  appeal is,  therefore. dismissed with no order as to costs. M. L. A.                                   Appeal dismissed. 809