# [1969] 3 S.C.R. 730

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 730
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-02-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1426 of 1968
- **Bench:** S. M. Sjkri, R. S. Bachawat, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1969-3-s-c-r-730-4634
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), ss. 41 and 57-App/ication for staRe
carriage pern1it ·an new route-Procedure to be followed.
The appellant applied to the R.T.A. for a permit to ply a stage carriage on a new route on which no stage carriage was plying before. The
R.T.A. published the application under s. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939.
Some representations against the grant of the permit on the
ground that there was no need we're received.
The R. T.A., after over~
ruling the objections granted the permit to the appellant. The appeal by.
some of the objectors was allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the procedure adopted by the R.T.A. was not
in accordance with law inasmuch as it failed to determine the question
of the need for a service in that 'route before entertaining the application.
The appellate order was confirmed by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : (Dismissing the appeal) Having regard to the purpose behind ss. 47 and 57, that only public interest should be considered and any
manipulation in favoUr of a particular ·applicant shou1d be eliminated.
there should be two independent steps before granting a stage carriage
permit : (a) there should be a determination by the R.T.A., under s.
4 7 (3), of the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted
-00 that r<>ute, and (b) applications for permits for such number of stage
carriages should be entertained thereafter.
Otherwise, theo R.T.A. will
have no oppcrtunity to choose between competing
operators.
The 're~
presentations' made under s. 57(3) cannot be considered as competing
applications. Further, if 'representations' should be interpreted to include
'applications', then •· 57(3) becomes unworkable as there will be unending applications and publications. [733 B-C, F. H]
lcrya Ram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam, C.A. No. 95165 datcJ
27-10-1967, fOll\)Wed.

## Text

730
R. OBLISWAMI NAIDU
V,
ADDL. STATE TRANSPORT
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MADRAS & ORS.
February 17, 1969
[S. M. SJKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.)
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), ss. 41 and 57-App/ication for staRe
carriage pern1it ·an new route-Procedure to be followed.
The appellant applied to the R.T.A. for a permit to ply a stage carriage on a new route on which no stage carriage was plying before. The
R.T.A. published the application under s. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939.
Some representations against the grant of the permit on the
ground that there was no need we're received.
The R. T.A., after over~
ruling the objections granted the permit to the appellant. The appeal by.
some of the objectors was allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the procedure adopted by the R.T.A. was not
in accordance with law inasmuch as it failed to determine the question
of the need for a service in that 'route before entertaining the application.
The appellate order was confirmed by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : (Dismissing the appeal) Having regard to the purpose behind ss. 47 and 57, that only public interest should be considered and any
manipulation in favoUr of a particular ·applicant shou1d be eliminated.
there should be two independent steps before granting a stage carriage
permit : (a) there should be a determination by the R.T.A., under s.
4 7 (3), of the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted
-00 that r<>ute, and (b) applications for permits for such number of stage
carriages should be entertained thereafter.
Otherwise, theo R.T.A. will
have no oppcrtunity to choose between competing
operators.
The 're~
presentations' made under s. 57(3) cannot be considered as competing
applications. Further, if 'representations' should be interpreted to include
'applications', then •· 57(3) becomes unworkable as there will be unending applications and publications. [733 B-C, F. H]
lcrya Ram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam, C.A. No. 95165 datcJ
27-10-1967, fOll\)Wed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1426 of
1968.
Appeal from the .iudgment and order dated April 16, 1968 of
the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 908 of 1968.
D. Narsaraju Subramaniam, Vineet Kumar, J. Ramamurthy,
P. S. Khera and Shyamala Pappu, for the appellant.
S. T. Desai, A. R. Ramanathan and R. Gopalakris/man,
for
respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. 1:he scope of s. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) comes up for consideration in this appeal by certificate.
·
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
B
c
D
B
.,
R. o. NAIDU v. S.T.A.T. (Hegde, J.)
731
The facts of the case necessary for the purpose of deciding the
point in issue are few, and they are.as follows:-
On August 8, 1966, the·appellant applied to the R:T.A. Coimbatore for a permit to ply a stage carriage on the route Bhavani to
Vellithiruppur. That was Mtirely a new route. No stage carriage
was plying on that route at that time. The R. T.A. published that
application under s. 57 (3) of the Act. Respondents Nos. 2-3 and
others made representations against that application contending
that there was no need to grant a stage carriage permit for that
route. The R. T .A. overruled their objection and granted the permit asked for on October 9, 1967.
As against the order of the
R. T.A. some of the objectors went up in appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. The Additional State Transport
Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by its order of February 22,
1968 holding that the procedure adopted by the R. T.A. was not in
accordance with law inasmuch as it had failed to determine the
question of the need for a service in that !}JUie before entertaining
the application for a stage carriage permit. The Tribunal held that
the procedure adopted by the RT.A. contravened s. 47(3) of the
Act. The appellant challenged that order before the High Court
of Madras in Writ Petition No. 908 of 1968. The High Court
dismissed that application. Hence this appeal.
Section 47 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be adopted
by the R.T.A. in considering applications for stage carriage permit.
That section reads :
"A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage pennit, have regard
to the following matters namely :
(a) the interests of the public generally;
(b) the ad"antages to the public of the service to be
provided, including the saving olf time likely to
be effected
thereby
and
any
convenience
arising from journeys not being broken;
( c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services
G
operating or likely to operate in the near future,
whether by road or other means, between
the
places to be served;
H
( d) the benefk to any particular locality or localities
likely to be afforded by the service;
( e) the operation by the applicant of other transport
services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending;
(f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area;
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969) 3 S.C.R.
and shall also take into consideration any representations
made by persons already providing passenger transport
facilities by any means along or near the proposed route
or area, or by any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf ~ the State Government, or by any
local authority or pohce authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies :
Provided that other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit from a co-operative
society registered or deemed to have been registered under
any enactment in force for the time being shall, as far as
may be, be given preference over applications from individual owners.
(2) A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to
grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from
any time-table furnished that the provisions of
this Act relating to the speed at which vehicles
may be driven are likely to be contravened :
Provided that before such refusal an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to amend
the time-table so as to conforn1 to the said provisions.
(3) A Regional Transport Authority may, having
regard to the matters mentioned in sub-s. (I),
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."
Suo-section (3) of s. 47 ol the Act required the Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriage permits that
may be granted in a route having regard to the matters mentioned
in sub-s. ( 1) of that section.
The question for determination is
whether the detennination as to the number of stage carriages required on a route should be done at a stage anterior !o that of entertaining applicatioris 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 RT.A. has proceeded on
the basis that 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 dues not throw
any light on the controversy before us but if ss. 4 7 and 57 of the
Act are read together it appears to us to be clear that the view
B
c
D
B
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
:R. 0. NAIDU \'. S.T.A.T. (Hegde, I.)
733
taken by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court is the correct
view. 1f contrary view i; taken it will throw open the door for
manipulations and nepotism. There may be possibility of the
personality of the applicant influencing the decision of the R.T.A.
on the question of need for a stage carriage permit in the route and
thereby public interest whi~h should be the main consideration
while taking a decision under s. 47(3) may suffer. If we accept
the view taken by the R.T.A. as correct, an operator who happens
to apply for the route first will be in a commanding position. J'he
R.T .A. will have no opportunity to choose between competing
operators and hence public interest might suffer.
Mr. Narsaraju, learned Counsel for the appellant tried to 1.ueet
the difficulty by suggesting that sub-s. ( 3) of s. 57 of the Act is
wide enough to allow the competing operators to apply for the route
in question when the first applicant's application is published and
representations called for.
Section 57(3) reads:
"On receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the Regional Transport
Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the Authority and shall publish the
application or the substance thereof in the prescribed
manner together with a notice of the date before which
representations in connection therewith may be submitted
and the date, not being less than 30 days from such publication, on which, and the time al!d place at which, the
application and any rep~entation received will be considered."
(Proviso is not relevant for our present purpose).
We are unable to accept this contention.
That sub-section
F
merely permits representations to be made in respect of the application published.
Such representations cannot take the form of
competing applications. It is difficult to accept the contention that
the word "representations" in s. 57 (3) includes applications for
the route. That apart if we accept Mr. Narsaraju's contention then
the whole thing will become unworkable. If at the time of makin~
his representation an operator can also make an application for a
G
stage carriage permit for that route, that application again will have
to be published under s. 57 (3) and objections called for. Extending the logic of Mr. Narsaraju's argument as we ourrht to, at the
time of making representations to those applications, further applications can be made. This may turn out to be an unending chain.
H
On an examination of the relevant provisions of the Act and
the purpose behind ss. 47 and 57, we are convinced that before
granting a stage carriage permit two independent steps have to be
taken. Firstly there should a determination by the R.T.A. under
LIOSap.169-12
734
SUPREMl.ii COURT REPORTS.
[1969] 3 S:C.R
s. 47(3)of the number of stage carriages for which stage carriage
permits may be granted in that route. Thereafter applications for
stage carriage permits in that route should. be entertained. The
R.T.A. is not competent to grant stage carriage permits for more
carnages than fixed under s. 4 7 ( 3). Our above conclusion accords
with the view expressed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 95 of
1965.
(M/s. Jaya Ram Motqr Service v. S. Rajarathinam and
orJ. )( 1). Therein the Court observed :
"The scheme of sec. 4 7 is that when a person makes
an application under sections 45 and 46 the Authority
first considers it under.sec: 47 ( 1) in the light of the matters set out therein and also the representations, if any,
made by the persons mentioned therein. The Authority
then fixed under sec. 4 7 ( 2), ha_ving
regard to
the
matters mentioned in s. 47 ( 1), the nrimber of stage carriages for which permits may be granted in the region or
on any specified route within such region. Having fixed
the limit the Authority publishes under s. 57(3), tlie
application with a notice of the .date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and
the date on which such application and representations
would be considered. The proviso to s. 57 ( 3) lays down
that if the grant of a permit has the effect of increasing
the number of vehicles operating in that region or in any
specified area thereof or on the route .~ithin such region
beyond the limit fixed under s. 4 7 ( 3), the Authority may
dismiss the application summarily. lfit does n'ot exceed
such limit and the Authority decides to grant a permit it
has to consider the application and the representations
submitted to it in conformity with the procedure laid
down in sec. 57. Therefore sec. 47 envisages two stages
of the inquiry; ( i) the fixing of the number of permit
under s. 47(3) and (ii) the consideration thereafter of
the application for grant of a permit and the representations if any by the persons mentioned in s. 4 7 ( 1 ) . It
would therefore seem that once the Authority has fixed
the number of vehicles to be operated in the region or
the area or the particulauoute and the number of permits
to be granted therefor, the stage of inquiry under s. 4 7 ( 3)
is over. The next thing that the Authority has to consider is whether grant of a permit would be within such
limit or not. If it does not exceed the limit the Authority
has to consider the application and the representation if
any, in connection therewith and to grant or refuse to
gr~t the permit under sec;. 48 ( 1 ) . Therefore, once the
(1) C.A. No. 95/65 decided en 27-10-1967 ..
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
R. o. NAIDU v. s.T.A.T. (Hegde, I.)
limit is fixed, if the grant of an application does not have
the effect of exceeding that limit, the only question before
the Authority would be whether the applicant is a person
fit to be granted the permit or not in the light of the matters set out in sub-sec. ( 1) of sec. 4 7. The question of
the number of permits to be granted, having been already
canvassed and decided, cannot become the subject at that
stage of any further controversy. This is clear from the
fact that sec. 48 ( 1) which empowers the Authority to
grant or refuse to grant the permit starts with the words
'subiect to the provisions of s. 4 7'. It is therefore clear
that the Authority has first to fix the limit and after having
done so, consider the application or representations in
connection therei:v.ith in accordance with the procedure
laid down in sec. 57. As held in Abdul Mateen v. Ram
Kai/ash Pandey(') the Authority may modify the limit
fixed by it under sec. 4 7 ( 3) but once such a limit is fixed,
it cannot ignore it while considering the applications
before it under sec. 48. Sec. 47 (3), as observed there,
'is co.ncerned with a general order limiting stage carriages
generally etc., on a consideration of matters specified in
s. 4 7 ( 1). That general order can be modified by the
Regional Transport Authority, if it so decides, one way
or the other. But the modification of that order is not
a matter for considera\ion when the Regional Transport
Authority is dealing with the actual grant of permits
under s. 48 read with s. 57 for at that stage what the
Regional Transport Authority has to do is to choose between various applicants .... That, in our opinion, is not
the stage when the general order passed under section
4 7 ( 3) can be reconsidered for the order under s. 48 is
subject to the provisions of s. 4 7, which includes s. 4 7 ( 3)
tinder which a general order limiting the number of stage
carriages etc. may have been passed.'
That being so, if an application is refused such refusal
is under sec. 48 (1) and the appellant who is denied the
permit has a right of appeal under sec. 64(l)(a)."
735
In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with
costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
(I) [196'] J S.C.R. 523, 529.