# 45 3 ABDUL REHMAN AND ORS v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1978] 3 S.C.R. 453
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-03-08
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/45-3-abdul-rehman-and-ors-v-state-transport-appellate-tribunal-ors-7345
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(.'onstitution of India, 1950, Art.
226-lurisdiction of the High Court to
interfete under Art. 226 with the orders of the transport authorities in the grant
of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
A'1otor l'clticles Act, 1939, Section 47-Scope of.
A
B
While considering the applications including those of the appellants for the
C
grant of additional stage carriage
permit on 1be
Meerut-iVIay;ana-Miranpur
route which was increased from 11 of 15 in 1959, the
Regional Transport
Authority, purporting to exercise its authority of grant of the permi~ under
set::tion 48 read with section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, modified the
limit of nu,mbe1 of stagel carria,.ge permits by i'llcreasing it to 20 against the
settled law or the subject, and disallowed the applications of the appellants as
\Veil as the representations of Fakir Chand Gupta and others. Against this order
Fakir Ch,aud Guptai and a few others including Harish Chandra Misra preferred
D
an appeal 10 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which, following the decisioo of this Court in [1963] 3 SCR 523, by its order dated November 26, 1963
set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and remanded
the
matter to the hitter for filling up the six vacancies. 1'en other appeals preferred by others, later, were dismissed as infructuous by the Tribunal vide
its
order dated October 17, 1966 in view of the order already passed by it on
November 29, 1963 in the appeal of Fakir Chand Gupta and others.
At its
meetings held on August 28-29, 1964, the Regional Transport Authority coiisidered the applications of 17 persons whose cases had
been remanded a-nd
E
refused to consider the appellants' on the ground that they had not appealed
against the order rejecting their applications· in 1962. 'fbe appellants iind Harish
Chandra Misra, thereupon preferred four separate appea•ls under section 64A
of the Mote: \'ehicles Act to the State Transport Tribunal. l)uring the pendency of the appeals, Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route became an inter-regional
(amalgamated) route by its extension upto Bijnor.
Thereupon, all the four
appellants applied to the Tribunal for ime'l1.dments of their original applications and for grant of permits for the said amalgamated route.
According to
their prayer, the Tribunal allowed their appeals and directed
the
Regional
F
Transport Apthority that they be allotted one re.gular stage carriage permit each
for the an1algamated route. Raihim-Ud-Din, an existing operator on the MeerutMawana-Mirctripur route filed a petition before the High Court for issuance of
a \.Vrit quashing the order gr-anti•.1g permits in favour of the appellants and
H~rish Chandra Misra. The petition was partly allowed hy a single Judge of
High Court quashing the order granting the permits ot the appellants ori the
ground that siince they had omitted to appeal against the order of the Regional
Transport Authority rejecting their applications for the grant of permits in 1962,
G
their case had come to a.in end and they could not be granted any permits. The
Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellants failed.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court
HELD : I. The High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution should be
reluctant to interfere or disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities
or tribunals under the Act especialJy when the legislature has entrusted the task
of granting or renewing the stage carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities
or tribunals v,rhich are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure and
H
practice and the relevant matters which should engage their attentic'il under the
provisions contained in the Act.
In dealing with applications
for writs
of
certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. in cases of the present kind,
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 s.c.R.
the I-Iigh Court must not exercise the jurisdictio1.J of an appellate court a.n.d the
findings or conclusions on questions Of fact

## Text

• •
I
45 3
ABDUL REHMAN AND ORS.
v.
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
March 8, 1978
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J
(.'onstitution of India, 1950, Art.
226-lurisdiction of the High Court to
interfete under Art. 226 with the orders of the transport authorities in the grant
of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
A'1otor l'clticles Act, 1939, Section 47-Scope of.
A
B
While considering the applications including those of the appellants for the
C
grant of additional stage carriage
permit on 1be
Meerut-iVIay;ana-Miranpur
route which was increased from 11 of 15 in 1959, the
Regional Transport
Authority, purporting to exercise its authority of grant of the permi~ under
set::tion 48 read with section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, modified the
limit of nu,mbe1 of stagel carria,.ge permits by i'llcreasing it to 20 against the
settled law or the subject, and disallowed the applications of the appellants as
\Veil as the representations of Fakir Chand Gupta and others. Against this order
Fakir Ch,aud Guptai and a few others including Harish Chandra Misra preferred
D
an appeal 10 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which, following the decisioo of this Court in [1963] 3 SCR 523, by its order dated November 26, 1963
set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and remanded
the
matter to the hitter for filling up the six vacancies. 1'en other appeals preferred by others, later, were dismissed as infructuous by the Tribunal vide
its
order dated October 17, 1966 in view of the order already passed by it on
November 29, 1963 in the appeal of Fakir Chand Gupta and others.
At its
meetings held on August 28-29, 1964, the Regional Transport Authority coiisidered the applications of 17 persons whose cases had
been remanded a-nd
E
refused to consider the appellants' on the ground that they had not appealed
against the order rejecting their applications· in 1962. 'fbe appellants iind Harish
Chandra Misra, thereupon preferred four separate appea•ls under section 64A
of the Mote: \'ehicles Act to the State Transport Tribunal. l)uring the pendency of the appeals, Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route became an inter-regional
(amalgamated) route by its extension upto Bijnor.
Thereupon, all the four
appellants applied to the Tribunal for ime'l1.dments of their original applications and for grant of permits for the said amalgamated route.
According to
their prayer, the Tribunal allowed their appeals and directed
the
Regional
F
Transport Apthority that they be allotted one re.gular stage carriage permit each
for the an1algamated route. Raihim-Ud-Din, an existing operator on the MeerutMawana-Mirctripur route filed a petition before the High Court for issuance of
a \.Vrit quashing the order gr-anti•.1g permits in favour of the appellants and
H~rish Chandra Misra. The petition was partly allowed hy a single Judge of
High Court quashing the order granting the permits ot the appellants ori the
ground that siince they had omitted to appeal against the order of the Regional
Transport Authority rejecting their applications for the grant of permits in 1962,
G
their case had come to a.in end and they could not be granted any permits. The
Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellants failed.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court
HELD : I. The High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution should be
reluctant to interfere or disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities
or tribunals under the Act especialJy when the legislature has entrusted the task
of granting or renewing the stage carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities
or tribunals v,rhich are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure and
H
practice and the relevant matters which should engage their attentic'il under the
provisions contained in the Act.
In dealing with applications
for writs
of
certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. in cases of the present kind,
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 s.c.R.
the I-Iigh Court must not exercise the jurisdictio1.J of an appellate court a.n.d the
findings or conclusions on questions Of fact could hardly be
re-examined
or
disturbed by it unless the well recognised tests in that behalf were satisfied.
[458 A·D]
Kishanchand ]\larsinhdas Bhatia v. State Transport Appellate Authority turd
Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 695, reiterated.
·
Sri J<an1a Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C. Chandra Sekaran and Ors. [1964]
5 SCR 869.
Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act emphasises the interest of the travelling public as the dominc.nt consideration in the gra'Ilt of permits and no order
in exercises of powers under 1\rt. 226 or Art. 136 of the Constitution
will
ordinarfly be passed if the public is likely to suffer.
In the instant case : (a) the High Court should not have in exercise of its
w1 it jurisdiction interfered i1n a case of this nature particularly when the cancellation of the appellants' permits was bound to cause inconvenience and hardship to the travelling public; (b) the route in question ha<l assumed the character
of an amalgamated inter-regional route in regard where to the provisions of
Section 47(3) of the Act \Vhich are confined in their operation to a region or
a specified area or a specified route within a region were not applicable and the
need for increasing the number of permits in the interest of public was recognised by the Regio•.:ial Transport Authority itself in its resolution No. 44(5)
passed by it in its meetings held on July 7 to July 10, 1970, which is expressly
alluded to in the order dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appell>te
Tribunal as also the fact that the, appellants have been operating on the route
for quite sometime and do not appear to have indulged in any
malpractice.
[457 E-H]
Mohd. Ibrahiln etc. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras etc. [1971]
I S.C.R. 474 followed.
[The court in view of ito; decision in this appeal, dismi<;sed the connected
special leave petition (Civil) No. 1852/76].
Cil'IL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the
Judgment and
Order dated
27-8-1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 208 /75.
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No. 1852 of 1976.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3-9-1975 of the Allahabad
High Court to Special Appeal No. 216/73.
S. C. Agarwala, for the appellants.
A. K. Sen (in CA No. 1276), J. P. Goyal and Ranhir Jain, for
Respondents 3-5 and Petitioner in SLP.
L. N. Sinha, D. P. Singh and R. K. Jain, for Respondent No. 3
in SLP.
The Jndgment of the Conrt was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J-This appeal by
'special leave is
directed
against the judgment and orde.r dated Augnst 27, 1975 of a Division
Bench of the High Court of Jndicatnre at Allahabad in Special Appeal
No. 208 of 1973 upholding the order dated August 28, 1973 of a
Single Judge of that Court whereby he quashed the order dated May
•<
•
. <
/
.... --·~
r;.
J
•
ABDUL REHMAN V. U.P. TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
455
(Jaswant Singh, J.)
5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting regular
A
permits in favour of the appellants for amalgamated route known as
Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur,
Meerut-Bijnor
via
Mawana-Mee.rutMawana Khurd-Phalauda, Meerut-Mlasuri-Lawar-Phalauda,
MeerutMasuri-Lawar and Khatauli-Phalauda-Mawana-M;akdoompur route.
The dispute ils stated in the judgment and order under appeal
relates to Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route, the limit of the number
B
of stage carriage permits whereof was raised from 11 to 15 in 1959.
Out of the additional four permits which thus became available for
grant, the Regional Transport Authority granted three to the displaced
persnns and invited applications to fill up the remaining one vacancy.
Jn response to the invitation, the appellants also applied for grant of
the stage carriage permits for the said route. While considering the
applications and exercising its authority of grant of the permits under
C
section 48 read with section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
(hereinafter called 'the Act'), the Regional Transport Authority modified the limit of number of the stage carriage permits and increased
it from 15 to 20 which it could not do in view of the law settled by this
Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey\ 1') and Ors., M/s. Jaya
Ram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam and Ors.('), Baluram v. The
State Transport Appellate Authority, Madhya Pradesh & Ors.(3)
D
and
R.
Obliswami
Naidu
v.
The
Addi.
State
Transport
Appellate Tribunal, Madras & Ors.( 4 ) and granted the six permits
to (1) Mohd. Matin Sheikh, (2) Satwati Devi, Sardar Singh Chidda
Singh and Mahendra Singh, ( 3) Satyapal Khetre Pal, ( 4) Ramesh
Mohan Sharma, (5) Chaiju Mal and (6) Hari Dass, disallow;ng the
applications of the appel!ants and
some others
including Harish
Chandra Mishra and rejecting the representations made by Fakir Chand
E
Gupta and others.
Against this order of the Regional
Transport
Authority, Fakir Chand Gupta and a few others including
Harish
Chandra Mishra preferred an appeal to the State Transport Annellate
Tribunal.
The Tribunal by its order dated November 26, 1963 set
aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and remanded the
matter to the latter for filling np the six vacancies after follow;ng the
procedure referred to in the decision of this Court in Abdul Mateen
F
v. Ram Kailash Pandey (supra) where it was held :-
"Section 47(3) gives power to the Regional Transport
Authority having regard to the matters mentioned in subs.(!) to limit the number of stage carriages generally etc.
It would be clear therefore that when the Regional Transport
Authority proceeds in the manner provided in s. 57 to consiG
der an application for a stage carriage permit and even,
tually decides either to grant it or not to grant it under s. 48
its order has to be subject to the provisions of s. 47, including s. 47(3) by which the Regional Tran·sport Authority is
given the power to limit the number of stages generally etc.
----·--·-. --
(!) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 521.
H
(2) C.A. 95of1965 decided on 27-10-1967.
(3) C.A. 727of1965 decided on 22-3-1968.
(4) [1969]3 S.C.R. 730.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1978] 3 S.C.R.
Therefore, if the Regional Transport Authority has limited
the number of stage carriages by exercising its power under
s. 47(3), the grant of permits by it under s. 48 has to be
subject to the limit fixed under s. 47(3). We cannot accept
the contention on behalf of the appellant that when the Regional Transport Authority following the procedure provided
in s. 57, comes to grant or refu'se a permit it can ignore the
limit fixed under s. 47(3), because it is also the authority
making the order under s. 48. Section 47(3) is concerned
with a general ordei: limiting stage carriages generally etc. on
a consideration of matters specified ins. 47(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 consideration when
the Regional Transport Authority is dealing with the actual
grant of permits under s. 48 read with s. 57, for at that stage
what the Regional Transport Authority has to do is to choose
between various applicants who may have made applications
to it unde.r s. 46 read with s. 57. That in our opinion is not
the stage where the general order passed under s. 47(3) can
be re-considered for the order under s. 48 is subject to the
provisions of s. 47, which includes s. 47(3) under which a
general order limiting the number of stage carriages etc. may
have been passed."
Ten other persons whose applications for grant of permits were
rejected also preferred appeals before the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal but the same were dismissed as infructuous by the Tribunal
vide its order dated Oc!!:Jber 17, 1966 in view of the order already
passed by it on November 26, 1963 in the appeal of Fakir Chand
Gupta and others. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority at
its meetings held on August 28 and 29, 1964 considered the applications of 17 persons whose case's had been remanded to it but refused
to consider the cases of the appellants on the ground that they had
not appealed against the order rejecting their applications in 1962.
The Region'!I Transport Authority also rejected the application of
Barish Chandra Mishra though his matter had been remanded hy the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The
appellants and
Harish
Chandra Mishra thereupon prefer.red four separate
appeals
under
section 64 of the Act to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeals, Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route became an inter regional (amalgamated) route by its extension upto
;Bijnor.
The!eupon, the appellants and Harish
ChaniJra
Mishra
applied to the Tribunal for amendment of their original applications
and for grant of permits for the said amalgamated route.
Acceding
to their prayer, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed that
the appellants and Hari'sh Chandra Mishra be allotted one regular
stage carriage permit each for the amalgamated route mentioned above.
AgQrieved by tl1is order,
Rahimuddin,
an existing ooerntor on the
Meerut-Mawana-Miranour route filed a petition before the High Court
for issuance of a writ quashing the order granting permits in favour of
the appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra.
The said petition was
i
• \
.l
-I
•
ABDUL REHMAN V. U.P. TRANSPORT APPELLATE 1RlllUNAL
457
(laswant Singh, J.)
allowed by a Single Judge of the Higi1 Court in so far as the appellants
were concerned on the ground that 'since the appellants had omitted
to appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting
their applications for grant of permits in 1962, their case had come to
an end and they could not be granted any permit. Dissatisfied with this
judgment and order, the appellants preferred a Letters Patent Appeal
which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated August 28, 1973 .
It is against this judgment and order that the appellants have come up
in appeal to this Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length. It is true that the appellants did not appeal against the order
of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting their applications
in
1962 but as they were informed of the rejection of their applications
only in 1964 and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had vide its
order dated November 26, 1963 already set aside the order of the
Regional Transport Authority which had been made in contravention
of the settled law, there was in reality no subsisting order against which
the appellants could have fruitfully appealed.
And even if they had
appealed, their appeals were bound to meet the same fate as the other
ten appeals which, as already stated, were dismissed as infructuous.
In this view of the matter, we find no force in the prefatory submissions
made by Mr. Ashok Sen that the applications made by the appellants
for grant of the permits to the Regional Transport Authority having
become non est with their rejection in 1962, no rival claim made by
the appellants which could merit determination was left to be considered either by the Regional Transport Authority or by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
Coming now to the merits, we are of opinion that having regard
to the facts that with its extension upto Bijnor, the route in question
had assumed the character of an amalgamated inter-regional route in
regard whereto the provisions of section 47 (3) of the Act which, as
succinctly held by this Court in Mohd, Ibrahim etc. v. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, Madras etc.(1) are confined in their operation to
a region or a specified area or a specified route within a region were
not applicable and the need for increa~ing the number of permits in the
interest of public was recogni'sed by the Regional Transport Authority
itself in its resolution No. 44(5) passed at its meetings held on July 7
to July 10, 1970 which is expressly alluded to in the aforesaid order
dated May 5, 1973 of the State Appellate Tribunal as also the fact
that thel appellants
have been
operating
cm
the route for
quite somet\me
and do not
appear
to have
indulged
in any
malpractice, we think the High Court should not have in exercise
of its writ jqrisdiction interfered in a case of this nature particularly
when, the cancellation of the appellants' permits was bound to cause
inconvenience and hardship to the travelling public. After all section
47 of the Act emphasises the interest of the travelling public as the
dominant consideration in the l!fant of permits and no order in exercise of powers under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution
will ordinarily be pas5ed if the public is likely to suffer. And, surely,
(!) [1971] I S.C.R. 474.
A
B
D
E
F
G
B
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
A
in th!s c~se, aft~r aU tl!ese ye~rs when all these buses having been plymg, 1t will be ntua!ishc to drrect second consideration of the need to
increase the number of permits for the ronte which is now admittedly
an inter-regional route. It is hardly necessary in this connection to
reiterate the observations made by this O>nrt in Kishanchand N arsingh
Das Bhatia v. State Transport Appellate Authority & Ors. (1) that the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant
B to interfere with or disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities or tribunals under the Act especially when the Legislature has entrusted the task of granting or renewing the stage carriage permits to
the aforesaid au.thorities or tribunals which are expected to be fully
conversant with the procedure and practice and the relevant matters
which should engage their attention under the provisions' contained in
c
D
,,the Act.
In dealing with applications for writs of certiorari 'under
Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of the present kind, it is necessary to bear in mind that the High Court does not exercise the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court and the findings or conclusions on questions
of fact could hardly be re-examined or disturbed by it under Article
226 of the Constitution unless the well recogni'sed tests in that behalf
were satisfied vide : Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C. Chandrasekaran & Ors. (2).
Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court and restore the order dated May
5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in so far as the
appellants are concerned. In the circumstances of the case, we leave
the parties to bear their own costs.
ORDER
E
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1852/75 :-
JAsWANT SINGH, J.-This is a petition under Article 136 of .the
Constitution seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and
order dated September 3, 1975 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 216 of 1973 upholding the jud!Jment
and order d~ted August 28, 1973 of K. N. Singh, J. in writ petition
F
No. 3310 of 1973 whereby while di~missing the writ petition in part,
he maintained the order dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal in so far as it allowed the appeal No" 237 of 1969
preferred by Hari'sh Chandra Mishra against the order of the Regional
Transport Authority, Meerut passed in its meeting held on August 28
and 29, 1964 and directed that a regular stage carriage permit for the
amalgamated route known as Meerut-Mawana-Hastinapur-Bijnor and
G
allied routes, be allowed to him.
The facts giving rise to this petition are set out in onr judgn1ent of
even dated in Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 1975 and need not be reiterated.
In view of the settled position of law that this Court would be reluctant
to interfere with or disturb the decision of specially constituted au.thorities o.r tribunals under the :Mbtor Vehicles Act, 1939 especially when
H
the Legislature has entrusted the task of granting or renewing the stage
(!) [1968) 3 S.C.R. 605.
(2) [196415 S.C.R. 869.
\
• •
'
459
carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities or tribunals which are
A
expectep .to be fully conversant with the procedure and practice and
the reie:'ant matters which should engage their attention under the provi'sions o;ontained in the Act and nothing basically wrong with the
order sought to be appealed against so far as Harish Chandra Mishra
is concerned has been found by the High Court, as also the obse.rvations made by this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim etc. v. State Transport
Appellaie Tribunal, Madras etc.(') we do not find any merit in this
B
petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
S.R.
Appeal allowed & Petition dismissed.
(I) [1971] I S.C.R. 474, 481·484.