# MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. MANGRULPIR JT. MOTOR SERVICE (P) LTD., &: ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 561
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-04-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 117 of 1971
- **Bench:** J. M. Shblat, A. N. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/maharashtra-state-road-transport-corporation-v-mangrulpir-jt-motor-service-p-5279
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

181
B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ss. 46, 47, 57-Bombay Motor Vehicles
Ru/'1, 1959-App/ications for
permit-Power of
Regipnal
Tran~port
Authority to call for additional information and to publish it for objec·
tions-Qualifications of applicants to be considered as on date of app/ica ...
lion for permit or as on date of consideration of applications.
C
Tho respondents were bus operators who applied for renewal of permits which were to expire on different dates between February 28, 1966
and September 30, 1966.
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Cor·
poration (appellant herein) applied for grant of substantive permits in
lieu of the renewal applications made by the respondents.
On account
of litigation the applications of the parties could not be decided for several
D
years. At the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on July 29,
1970 when all the applications were placed for consideration on merits,
a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the appellant to the effect
that in view of the unusually long time which had elapsed since the
making of the applications in 1965-66 it had become necessary to call
for and consider up to date information about all the applicants. The Regional Transport Authority directed all the applicants to file additional information relating to matters covered by columns 10 to 16 and 19 of the
E
.Prescribed form of the application by August 21, 1970 and directed their
publication and invitation of objections thereon. All the applicants including the respondents tendered additional up to -date information about
their operations in terms of the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
The additional information was pubUshed and objections thereto
were received. The Authority posted all the applications for consideration
on merit at a meeting due to be held on November 26, 1970. The resF
pendents meanwhile moved the High Court for an order on the Regional
Transport Authority to forbear from taking into account up to date infor~
mation while judging the merits of the contending operators and to enjoin
the said Authority to consider the applications only on the basis of the information originally filed in the year 1965-66. In appeal by special leave
to this Court the questions for consideration were (i) whether the Regional Transport Authority had power to call for additional information as
it did ; (ii) whether such additional information could be ordered to be
G
published ; and (iii) whether the Regional Transport Authority was bound
to decide the applications on the basis of the qualifications of the ap.
plicants originally given therein.
HELD: (i) In deciding the question of power of the Regional Transport Authority to call for further information it has to be borne in mind
that the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an appllca·
H
tion for permit, have regard among other matters to tho interests of the
public generally, the advantages to the public of the service< to be provided, the adequacy of other passenger transport services, the operation
36-1 s.a. India/71
662
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.1..
by the applicant of other transport services including those in respect of
which applications from him for permits are pending, the benefit to any
particular locality or location, likely to be afforded· by the service. There·
fore in considering public interest if the Regional Transport Authority
would find that the answers furnished by any applicant are not full and
complete., it will be constricting the exercise of the power of the Regional
Transport Authority by denying it authority to ask for additional infor·
mation for full and detailed consideration of the applications in tho
interest of the public.
No bard and fast rule can be laid down as to
how the Regional Transport Authority will act or what the limitations
of its powers will be. It is a statutory body. It is to exercise its powers
in the public interest. Such public interest will have to be con

## Text

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
v.
MANGRULPIR JT. MOTOR SERVICE (P) LTD., &: ORS.
April 29, 1971
[J. M. SHBLAT AND A. N. RAY, JJ.]
181
B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ss. 46, 47, 57-Bombay Motor Vehicles
Ru/'1, 1959-App/ications for
permit-Power of
Regipnal
Tran~port
Authority to call for additional information and to publish it for objec·
tions-Qualifications of applicants to be considered as on date of app/ica ...
lion for permit or as on date of consideration of applications.
C
Tho respondents were bus operators who applied for renewal of permits which were to expire on different dates between February 28, 1966
and September 30, 1966.
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Cor·
poration (appellant herein) applied for grant of substantive permits in
lieu of the renewal applications made by the respondents.
On account
of litigation the applications of the parties could not be decided for several
D
years. At the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on July 29,
1970 when all the applications were placed for consideration on merits,
a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the appellant to the effect
that in view of the unusually long time which had elapsed since the
making of the applications in 1965-66 it had become necessary to call
for and consider up to date information about all the applicants. The Regional Transport Authority directed all the applicants to file additional information relating to matters covered by columns 10 to 16 and 19 of the
E
.Prescribed form of the application by August 21, 1970 and directed their
publication and invitation of objections thereon. All the applicants including the respondents tendered additional up to -date information about
their operations in terms of the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
The additional information was pubUshed and objections thereto
were received. The Authority posted all the applications for consideration
on merit at a meeting due to be held on November 26, 1970. The resF
pendents meanwhile moved the High Court for an order on the Regional
Transport Authority to forbear from taking into account up to date infor~
mation while judging the merits of the contending operators and to enjoin
the said Authority to consider the applications only on the basis of the information originally filed in the year 1965-66. In appeal by special leave
to this Court the questions for consideration were (i) whether the Regional Transport Authority had power to call for additional information as
it did ; (ii) whether such additional information could be ordered to be
G
published ; and (iii) whether the Regional Transport Authority was bound
to decide the applications on the basis of the qualifications of the ap.
plicants originally given therein.
HELD: (i) In deciding the question of power of the Regional Transport Authority to call for further information it has to be borne in mind
that the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an appllca·
H
tion for permit, have regard among other matters to tho interests of the
public generally, the advantages to the public of the service< to be provided, the adequacy of other passenger transport services, the operation
36-1 s.a. India/71
662
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.1..
by the applicant of other transport services including those in respect of
which applications from him for permits are pending, the benefit to any
particular locality or location, likely to be afforded· by the service. There·
fore in considering public interest if the Regional Transport Authority
would find that the answers furnished by any applicant are not full and
complete., it will be constricting the exercise of the power of the Regional
Transport Authority by denying it authority to ask for additional infor·
mation for full and detailed consideration of the applications in tho
interest of the public.
No bard and fast rule can be laid down as to
how the Regional Transport Authority will act or what the limitations
of its powers will be. It is a statutory body. It is to exercise its powers
in the public interest. Such public interest will have to be considered with
regard to particular matters enumerated in s. 47 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 and the particulars of an application are to be judged w11h
reference to ss. 46 and 47 in particular of the Act.
Rule 68(6) of the
Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 also enables the State or the Region~
al Transport Authority, as the case may be, to require an applicant to
appear before it and to withhold the consideration of the application f<Jr
the permit until the applicant has so appeared in person if so required
or by any recognised agent if so permitted, and until the applicant has
furnished such information as may be required by the Regional Transport
Authority in connection with the application. The words 'in connection
with the application' are important. These words indicate that the Regional Transport Authority will have power to ask for further information.
In the absence of the Regional Transport Authority acting under
corrupt motive or malafide or for any oblique purpose the discretion
which is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority should not be
undermined or restricted.
·
(ii) Under s. 57 of the Act the application is to be published in
order to enable parties to submit representation in connection therewith.
In the present case in view of the fact that information was asked for
with regard to specific columns of the application it could not be denied
that the information was in connection with the application.
It was
therefore within the competence of the Regionai Transport Authority
\lnder s. 57 of the Act to publish the application or the substance thereof
in order to enable the persons affected thereby to send their representations to the Regional Transport Authority. It would be in fulfilment of
the objects and purposes of the Act a'nd advancement of public interest
to ensure that the permit is granted to the most meritorious applicant.
Therefore it is all the more necessary to publish additional information
in order to have the fullest materials on record for proper assessment
and evaluation of the merits and demerits.
(iii) The High Court was in error in holding that the Regional Transport Authority would have to consider the respective qualifications of the
applicants as on the date of their applications and not as on the date
of the actual consideration by the Regional Transport Authority of the
applications for the grant of permit.
Normally the Regional Transport
Authority would consider the applications for the grant of permits with~
in a short time o.f the submission of the applications. If for any reason
a long time has elapsed as in the present appeal, the Regional Transport
Authority will have to consider the various matters enumerated in els.
(a) to (f) of s. 46 of the Act at the time of the consideration of the applications. The death or insolvency of an applicant since the filing of the
application cannot be ignored. The public interest stands in the forefront.
·.
ffiANSPORT CORP. V. MANGRULPIR LTD. (Ray, J.)
563
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu Goverdhan
A
Regular Motor Service, & Ors., [1970] 2 S.C.R. 319, Dhani Devi v. Sant
.Bihari & Ors., [1969] 2 S.C.R. 507 and A. S. Jalaluddin v. Balasubramaniar Bils Service (P) Ltd. C.A. No. 161/65 Dt. 31-10-1967, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 117 of
1971.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 20, 1970 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
in Special Civil Applica.tion No. 939 of 1970.
M. C. Chagla, Santosh Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for
the apryeJlant.
B. R. L. Iyengar, M. N. Phadke, Naunit Lal, and Swaranjit
.Sondhi, for respondents nos. 1 to 6.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 20 November, 1970 of the Bombay High Court directing the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of the applications for stage carriage permits pending before it· without a.ny
further delay and without any further adjournment at the instance
of any party whatsoever.
The principal questions for consideration in this appea.l are;
first, whether the Regional Transport Authority has power to call
for further or additional information from the applicants for the
grant of permit at the time of consideration of the a.pplications
for the grant of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
hereinafter referred to as the Act and secondly whether the Regional Transport Anthority will consider the qualifications of the
applicants as on the date of the considera.tion of the applications
for grant of permits.
The respondents are private operators. They held substantive permits on various routes. They applied for renewa·l of permits
which were to expire on different dates between 28th February,
1966 and 30th September, 1966. The appellant applied for grant
of substantive permits in lieu of the renewal applications made by
the respondents.
While those applications were pending before the Regional
Transport Authority, Nagpur, some private operators on different
routes made a.n application under Article 226 of the Constitution
challenging the, validity of the direction of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal to the Regional Transport Authority to allow·
the State Transport Corporation an applica.nt for the grant of
B
c
D
E
G
H
564
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
permit to furnish complete information in respect of columns 10.
14 and 15 on the prescribed form of their application for grant
of permit. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by
judgment and order dated 5 October, 1967 quashed the order of
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by holding that the appli·
cation filed by the State Transport Corporation in that case was
defective and the Appellate Committee had no jurisdiction to give
the State Transport Corporation a fresh opportunity to furnish
additiona·l particulars.
An appeal was preferred from the judgment of the High Court to this Court being Civil Appeal No.
1297 of 1968 : Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service & Ors.
This Court
on 10 September, 1969 held that the Regional Transport Authority would be acting within its jurisdiction in calling upon an applicant to give more complete details and to give an opportunity
to the other parties to state their objections.
During the pendency of appeal in the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service, the respondents except respondent
No. 4 moved the High Court by Writ Petitions in the yea·r 1969
for hearing of their applications for grant of permit. Those Writ
Petitions were disposed of by the High Court by consent order
dated 20 March, 1969 by which it was agreed that till the decision of this Court in Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service, the
renewal applications of the respondents a.nd the applications of
the appellant in lieu of renewal would be postponed for consideration.
After the decision of this Court in Babu Goverdhan Regular
Motor Service the Regional Transport Authority held a meeting
on 28 October, 1969 to consider the applications. The appellant
at that meeting sought permission to file additional information in
the light of the above decision of this Court. The Regional
Transport Authority adjourned the proceeding till 27 November,
1969. At the meeting held on 27 November, 1969 respondent No.
6 contended that the Regional Transport Authority must, before
proceeding to consider that a.pplication, fix the limit of the number
of permits under section 47(3) of the Act.
This step was to be
taken before consideration of the applications for the grant of
permit. The Regional Transport Authority postponed the consideration of the applications and fixed the next meeting on 12
December, 1969, so that it would comply with the provisions of
section 47(3) of the Act. No meeting could however be held
for want of quorum a.nd the next meeting was fixed for 8 January,
1970.
(1) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 319.
TRANSPORT CORP. V. MANGRULPIR LTD. (Ray, J.)
The appellant meanwhile by a letter dated 29 December,
1969 addressed to the Regional Transport Authority gave additional information in respect of columns 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of
the prescribed form and ca-lled upon the Regional Transport
Authority to publish the said infQrmation to enable the contending or competing operators to file objections. The appellant gave
up to date information in order to enable the Regional Transport
Authority to judge the respective merits of the applicants which,
according to the appellant, could not be done on the basis of information furnished in the agplication filed in the year 1966. The
appellant simultaneously furnished copies of the additional infor·
mation to the respondents who were the private operators.
At the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on 21
March, 1970 the a,ppellant requested the Regional Transport
Authority for publication of the additional information. The Regional Transport Authority acceded to the request and directed
the Secretary 'of tlie Regional Transport Authority to publish additional information.
Some of the respondents who had initially
objected to the receipt and publication of additional information
ultimately withdrew the objections.
At about the time of the application of the information one
of the respondents applied to the High Court for an order that
the Regiona•I Transport Authority was unduly delaying consideration of the applications on merits. The High Court by an order
dated 30 April, 1970 directed the Regional Transport Authority to
<:ommence consideration of the applications as expeditiously as
possible and within two months from the date of the order. The
High Court further observed that the applica,tions for the grant
of permits were ripe for hearing and it was not the stage at all
for publishing any information which the appellant might have
lodged with Qie Regional Transport Authority. The High Court
took the view thait the Regional Transport Authority might call
for additional information but it was not the case there because
the appellant of its own sent additional information and it amounted to an amendment of their a,pplication which was not permissible under the Act and also in view of the decision of this Court
in Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service case(').
The Regional Transport Authority held the meeting on 29
July, 1970 and all the applications were placed for consideration
on merit. At th&t meeting a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the appellant on the basis of an application filed on 23
July, 1970 with the Regional Transport Authority to the effect
that in view of the unusally long time which had elapsed since the
making of the applications in the year 1965-66 for the grant of
.permits it had become necessary to call for and consider up to
(I) 1191012 s.c.R. 319.
565
A
B
c
D
E
p
G
H
566
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
date information about all the applicants. The Regional Transport Authority directed all the a,pplicants to file additional information relating to matters covered by columns 10 to 16 and 19 of
the prescribed form of the application by 21 August, 1970 and
directed their publication and invitation of objections thereon.
All the applicants including the respondents tendered additional up to date information about their operations in terms of
the order of the Regional Transport Authority. Additional information was published.
Objections thereto were received.
The
Regional Transport Authority posted all the applications for consideration on merit at a meeting due to be held on 26 November.
1970.
The respondents meanwhile moved the High Court for an
order on the Regional Transport Authority to forbear from taking
into account up to date information while judging the merits of
the contending operators and to enjoin the Regional Transport
Authority to consider the applications only on the basis of the
information origina,lly filed in the year 1965-66, and not on the basis
of any up to date information.
The High Court by judgment and
order dated 20 November, 1970 directed the Regional Transport
Authority to dispose of all the applications at the meeting on 26
November, 1970 and not to postpone consideration and disposal
of the applications on any ground whatsoever.
This is the judgment out of which the present appeal arises.
The High Court held that applications filed under section 46
of the Act could not be permitted to be amended and calling for
additional information by the Regional Transport Authority would
have the effect of granting amendment of applications.
Secondly,
the High Court held that the order of the Regional Transport
Authority dated 29 July, 1970 virtually permitted amendment of
the applications by the private operators as well as by the appellant and this course was contrary to law and was. opposed to the
previous directions given by the High Court on 30 April, 1970
to the Regional Transport Authority, to dispose of the applications
within two months.
Thirdly, the High Court held that the Regi<>-
nal Transport Authority had to consider the respective qualifications of the applicants as on the date of their applications and not
as on the date of the actual consideration by the Regional Transport Authority.
Fourthly, the High Court held that while considering the applications the Regional Transport Authority under
section 47 of the Act could call for such specific information as it
needed from a particular applicant, but in the present case fulr
information from all. the applicants had already been called for
and was now on the record of the Regional Transport Authority
and therefore the Regional Transport Authority should dispose of
the applications pending before it for five years without further
delay.
TRANSPORT CORP. V. MANGRULPIR LTD. (Ray, J.)
567
The first question which falls for consideration is whether the
~
Regional Transport Authority can call for further or additional
information from the applicants.
The applications for stage carriage permit are to contain particulars mentioned in section 46 of
the Act and in clauses (a) to (f) thereof which are as follows :-
"Application for stage carriage permit.-An application for a permit in respect of a service of stage carriages
or to use a particular motor' vehicle as a stage ca,rriage (in
this Chapter referred to as a stage carriage permit) shall,
as far as may be, contain the following particulars
namely:-
(a) the route or routes or the area or areas to
which the application relates ;
(b) the number of vehicles it is proposed to operate in relation to each route or area and the type
and seating capacity of each such vehicle ;
c
(c) the minimum and maximum number of daily
trips proposed to be provided in relation to each route
D
or area and the time table of the normal trips ;
(d) the number of vehicles intended to be kept
in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for
special occasion ;
(e) the arrangements intended to be made for
E
the housing and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and convenience of passengers and for the storage and safe custody of luggage ;
(fl such other matters as may be prescribed."
An applicatit>n for stage carriage permit is under the Bombay
Motor Vehicles Rules 1959 to be made in the form prescribed by
rule 80 and described as form P. St. S. A. The prescribed fom1
of the application contains 22 columns.
In the. present appeal,
the columns which are relevant for consideration are columns 10
to 16 and 19. These columns are as follows:-
"IO. Number of vehicles kept in reserve to maintain the service regularly and to provide for special occasion ...................... ..
11. Arrangements made for housing and repair of
vehicles (to be given in detail) ................................ .
12. Arrangements made for convenience and comfort
of passengers ...... , .................................. .
F
G
H
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R·
.A
13. Arrangements made for storage and safe custody
of luggage ..................................................... .
14. Particulars of any stage or contract carriage permit valid in the Sta.te, held by the applicant.. .............. ..
15. Particulars of any permit held by the applicant
B
in respect of the use of any transport vehicle in any other
D
.,
State ............................. .
16. Whether any of the permits stated above has been
subject of an order of suspension or cancellation in la't
four years. If so, give details ............................... ..
I 9. I am at present in possession of .................... .
vehicles available for use under the permit applied for."
Section 47 (!) of the Act which deals with the power of tl!.e
Re1ional Transport Authority to grant permits is as followi : -
"Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit:(!) A Re~io
nal Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely ;
(a) the interests of the public generally ;
(b) the advantages to the public of the service
to be provided including the saving of time likely to
be effected thereby and any convenience arising from
journeys not being broken ;
(c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future,
whether by road or other means, between the placea
to be served ;
(d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service ;
(e) the operation by the applicant of other transport services, including those in respect of which
applications from him for permits are pending;
(f) the condition of the roads included in tli•
proposed route or area ;
and shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger
transport facilities by any means alon!l or near the proposed route or area, or by any association representing
persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf by the State Government,
I
TRANSPORT CORP. V, MANGRULPIR LTD. (Ray, J.)
569
or by any local authority or police authority within
whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area
lies;
Provided that other conditions being equal an application for a stage carriaige 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."
The other section relevaat for purposes of grant ot permits
Ii section 57 of the Act which deals with the procedure of the
Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for stage
carriage permit. There are JO sub-sections of section 57. The two
important sub-sections for the purposes of the present appeal are
icction (2) and (3). Sub-section (2) deals with the time for making
applications for grant of permits.
No dispute arises on that subsection in the present appeal. Sub-s. (3) provides that on receipt of
an application for stage carriage permit the Regional Transport
Authority shall make the application available for inspection "at
the office of the Authority and shall publish the applications or the
substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice
of the date before which representations in connection therewith
may be submitted and the date, not being less than thirty days
from such publication on which, and the time and place at which,
the application and any representations received will be considered.
The only question which arises on sub-section (3) of section
57 of the Act in the present appeal is whether further or additional
information as may be called for by the Regional Transport Authority will also have to be published.
In the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service(')
this Court held that the form prescribed by the Rules requiring
the furnishing of information on the. various particulars and
matters referred to therein was valid and section 46 of the Act,
Rule 80 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules and the prescribed
form would all have to be read together in order to find out the
i;cheme of the Act on the question of power of the Regional Transport Authority to ask for full and complete infonnation.
Section 46 of the Act which deals with applications for stage
carnage pennit enumerates the particulars to be given in the applications.
The prescribed. form is with reference to these particulars. In the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service(') the
State Transport Corporation in filling up columns 14 and 15 with
regard to particulars of stage or contract carriage pennits held by
the applicant in the State and in any other State did not give full
particulars of pennits and ended by using the word "et cetera". The
<1l (191012 s.c.~. 319.
A
B
c
D
E
p
G
H
570
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPRBMB COURT RBPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R •.
High Court in the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service
beld that the a.pplication of the appellant in that case was invalid
because the application did not give full and complete details in
respect of columns 14 and 15. This Court held that the applicant in
that case should have given an exhaustive list of the other permits
held by it in the State or in any other State and therefore the State.
authorities could call upon a party to give complete details. The
High Court in the present case expressed the view that giving of
details would amount to an amendment of the application and that
this Court in the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service(') held that there could be no amendment of an application.
The decision of this Court is not to thateffect. If particulars will
be furnished these particulars will become part of ·the application.
The application is to that extent amended.
In deciding the question of power of the Regional Transport
Authority to call for further information it has to be borne in mind
that the Regional Transport Authority shall, in
considering an
application for permit, have regard among other matters to the
interests of the public generally, the advantages to the public of
the services to be provided, the adequacy of other passenger transport services, the operation by the applicant of other transport services including those in respect of which applications from him for
permits are pending, the benefit to any particular locality or Iocailities likely to be afforded by the service. Therefore in considering
public interest if the Regional Transport Authority would find that
the answers furnished by any applicant are not full and complete, it
will be constricting the exercise of power of the Regional Transport Authority by denying it authority to ask for additional information for full and detailed consideration of the applications in
the interest of the public.
No bard and fast rule can be laid down
as to how the Regional Transport Authority will act or what the
limitations of their powers will be. It is a statutory body. It is
to exercise statutory ,powers in the public interest.
Such public
interest would have to be considered with regard to particular·
matters enumerated in section 47 of the Act and the particulars
of an application are to be judged with reference to sections 46
and 47 in particular of the Act.
Reference may also be made
to rule 68(6) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules which enables
the State or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be,
to require an applicant to appear before it and to withhold the consideration of the application for the permit until the applicant has
so appeared in person if so required or by any recognised agent if
so permitted. and until the applicant has furnished such informa-.
tion as may be required by the Transport Authority in connection
with the application. ·The words "in connection with the application" are important. These words indicate tha.t the Regional
co [1970J 2 s.c.R, 319.
TRANSPORT CORP. v. MANGRULPIR LTD. (Ray, J.)
571
Transport Authority will have power to ask for further informaA
tion.
In the present case, on 29 July, 1970 the Regional Transport
Authority found that the applications which had been submitted
in the year 1965-66 would hardly represent the real merits of the
operators in the year 1970.
The Regional Transport Authority
therefore directed the applicants to file additional information relating to matters covered by columns 10 to 16 and 19 of the prescribed form.
The further direction was
that the information
would be filed before 21 August; 1970, and would be published
and objections woul~ be called for within 15 days from the date
of publication.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the
information supplied by the applicants tiursuant to the direction
of the Regional Transport Authority would be voluminous and
the publication would take a Jong time.
Under section 57 of the
Act the application is to be published in order to enable parties
to submit representation in connection therewith.
Publication
therefore is a statutory obligation.
In view of the fact that information was asked for with regard to specific columns of the appli·
cation it cannot be denied that the information was in connection
with the application.
It will therefore be within the competence
of the Regional Transport Authority under section 57 of the Act
to publish the application or the substance thereof in order to
enable the persons affected thereby to send their representations
to the Regional Transport Authority.
B
c
D
E
The Regional Transport Authority is entrusted by the statute
to consider the applications for the grant of permit.
Applications
are on a printed form. _ It will be in the interest of the applicants
to furnish all information.
If however for any reason, the Regional Transport Authority will require further information, it will
depend upon Q!e facts and circumstances of each case as to whether
F
the power is exercised bona fide, and whether the discretion that
is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority is exercised properly and judiciously.
In the absence of the Regional Transport
Authority acting under any corrupt motive or mala fide or for any
oblique purpose the discretion which is conferred on the Regional
Transport Authority should not be undermined and restricted.
G
The High Court was in error on the second question in holding that the Regional Transport Authority would have to consider
the respective qualifications of the applicants as on the date gf their
applications and not as on the date of the actual consideration
by the Regional Transport Authority of the applications for the
H
grant of permit.
Normally, the Regional Transport Authority
would consider the applications for the grant of permits within a
short time of the submission of the applications. If for any reason,
672
.A
B
c
D
G
H
SUPRl!llB COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.I\.
a Jong time elapses as in the present appeal, the Regional Transport Authority will have to consider the various matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of section 46 of the Act at the time of
consideration of the applications for the grant of permits. The
public interest stands in the forefront. If the Regional Transport
Authority will find that the applicant has become insolvent subsequen' to the submission of the application it cannot be expected
that the Regional Transport Authority will yet have to grant a
permit to the insolvent applicant.
In refusing the grant of permit the solvency of the applicant \\(ill enter the area of appreciation and assessment of the merits and demerits of the applicant.
Again, if an applicant died subsequent to the submission of the
application the Regional Transport Authority will have to consider
at the time of the grant °l permit whether it will allow the heirs
or legal representatives to stand in the shoes of the deceased &pplicant.
This question arose before this Court in Dhani Devi v.
Sant Bihari & Ors. ('). This Court held that the Regional Transport Authority would have power to substitute the heirs I successors in place of the deceased applicant in the records of the proceedings and allow the successors to prosecute the application.
In the unreported decision of this Court in A. S. Jalaluddin v.
Balasubramaniar Bus Service (P) Ltd. and A nr.(') the Regional
Transport Authority refused to grant permit to an applicant on the
ground that he did not have either main office or branch office or residence on the route applied for. The applicant preferred an appeal
to the State Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order
and granted the permit to the appellant. Before the Tribunal the
appellant's counsel in that case stated that the applicant had sent
to the Regional Transport Authority in advance of the date fixed
for consideration of the application for the grant of permit a
letter stating that the appellant had secured a branch office on the
route in question.
The finding of the Tribunal was challenged
by writ petitions in the High Court.
The learned Single Judge of
the High Court held that the finding of the Tribunal could not be
challenged but the Division Bench held that the finding of the
Tribunal as to possession of branch office and residence on the
route by the appellant was without evidence.
This Court set aside
the Bench decision of the High Court and restored the judgment
of. the learned Single Judge by holding Iha~ there was material
before the Tdbunal that the appellant had secured a branch office.
This decision establishes two propositions: First, that an applicant
can furnish additional or further information in connection with
the application before the Regional Transport Authority and
secondly that the Regional Transport Authority is competent to
(I} (1969] 2 S.C.R.. 507. (2) c. A. No. 161 of 1965 decided on 31-10-1967.
..
TRA~PORT CORP. V. MANORULPIR LTD. (Ray, J.)
573
act on such information at the time of consideration of the appli·
A
cations for the grant of permits. It will always have to be found
out in the facts and circumstances of each case as to the nature
of information, the manner of furnishing it in order to decide
whether the Regional Transport Authority was entitled to ask for
such information and the applicant was entitled to furnish it.
1f the Regional Transport Authority will have at the date of
the consideration of the grant of permit information which may
disentitle the applicant by reason of conviction, insolvency, loss of
fleet, lack of facilities, or any subsequent event of importance as
would affect the grant of permit to an applicant, it would be in ful·
filment of the objects and purposes of the Act and advancement
of public interest to ensure that the permit is granted to the most
meritorious applicant.
Therefore it is all the more necessary to
publish additional information in order to have the fullest materials
on record for proper assessment and evaluation of the merits and
demerits.
The High Court was wrong in directing the Regional Transport Authority to proceed on the basis of applications submitted
in the year 1965-66.
The Regional Transport Authority will dispose of the applications on the basis of further information forwarded by the applicants and published by the Regional Transport
Authority and representations by parties in connection therewith
as expeditiously as possible.
The obvious need not be stressed
that long time has elapsed and the Regional Transport Authority
should proceed in accordance with law without further delay. The
appeal is accepted.
The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
Each party will pay and bear their own costs.
G. C.
Appeal allowed.
B
c
D
E