# • -·-· MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SURI BALWANT REGL'LAR MOTOR SERVICE. AMRA VA TI .~ ORS

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 808
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-08-22
- **Bench:** J. C. SHAil, V. Ramaswami, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/maharashtra-state-road-transport-corporation-v-suri-balwant-regl-lar-motor-4525
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Mo/or Vehicles ACI (4 of 1939), ss. 48(1), 57(7)
and 58(1)-
0rder grantillK per1nit-Period of validity not mentioned-Effect of.-
Date of com111encement nor mentioned-Effect of.
Practice- ·Fillin1; up datr in earlier order-If re\·iev.'.
·If order grantin~ pennit can be
oral--Obligation
10 give
r1•asons
in1nzediarelt>.
Writ under Art. 226··-Conduct of part_v when pr?cfudes issue of.
On May 10. 1965, the R.T.A., after considering the applications by
the rcspondcnrs (priv;.1tc operators) for rene\\·al of their permits and the
application hy rhe appellant for a fresh grant of pcnnits, for the same
routes. p<l5Sed orders dismissing the applica1ions for rene\\':-ti and granting
substantive permits lo the appellant.
'fhe order wao; chairenged by the
private operators in \\Tit petitions and the High (-Ourt directed th;:Lt, pending the di~posal of the v.·rit petitions, status quo should he maintained hy
granting temporary permits to the private opcrarors.
'I"hereafter. \\·hile
the writ petitions were pending. the appellant and the private operators
filed " joint application o( compromise before the R. T.A. by which the
private operators agreed to \vithdraw the \\Tit petitions.
The R.1°.1\ .. on
Septernhcr 11, 1965. upon such assurance ;ind after hearing the parties,
tlirectcd that tbc appellant. which wa• granted suhst:antive pennil• by
order dated f\.1ay 10. 1965, v.·ould comrncnee operation on the routes
described in Schedule A to the order from November I, 1965. that the
private operators \\'ould operate on remporary permits on routes mentioned in Schedule B till June 30, 1967 and that the appellant would
commence operation on those routes from Julv 1, 1967.
With regard
to the routes 1nt!ntioned in Schedule C, the private operators agreed to,
surrendt..-r their permits in favour of the appellant hut, as the appellant
had not made <.1ny application for those routes. the R.T.A. decided to call
for applications a~ provided for in the :f\.1otor Vehicles Act, 1939.
On
October 8
I 965 the private operators withdrew the writ petitions, and
thereupon 'the R. l.A .. on Octoher 15. 1965. announced the decision taken
on Scptemher 11. 1965, and thereafter. invited appli~ations for .ttn routcs
nlentioned in S..:hcdulc C
lbc appellant .made its application. . The
private operators also applied, hut they applied not only for pcrm1B for
c Schedule roti:es. hut also .in respect of the B Sc_hedule routes.
On
April 5. 1967. permits \\'ere issued to the appella~t 1n respect of !he B
Schedule routes as per the orders dated ~ay ~O. 1 J65 and Septen1hcr I.I.
t 965, for a period of 5 years commt.'11Clng, ~ron1 Jt1.lv 1.. 1.967.
At ils
meeting on June 29, 1967, th~ R.T.A .. pa~scd resolutions 1n the presence
of the partieo; r.r:.nting suh<ifanllve permits in respect .of Schedule C roulL'"S
to the appellaiit. and rejecting the applications of .pnvare operators.
T,hc
minutes of the meeting v.'ere formally recorded 10 a. letter of July _o•
.1967, detailed reasons in support of the order v.·ere given, and the Je~cr
\\'as communicated to the prJvate operators.
The order dated June
_9,
A
B
c
D
E
F
-
G
H
-
..
-'
TRANSP. CORP. v. BALWANT SERVICE
8 0!}
A
1967 was challenged by the private operators in w'rit petitions and the
High Court allowed the petitions quashing the grant of permits to the
appellant on the 'routes described in Schedules B and C.
B
c
D
E
,y
G
H
In appeal to this Court, on the questions : (1) whether the order of
the R.T.A. dated May 10, 1965, was invalid because, (a) the period
of validity of the permit was not expressly mentioned, and (b) the order
did not mention the date of comtpencement of the period o'f the permit;
(2) whether the order of the R.T.A. dated September ll, 1965, fixing
the date of conimencement of the service was invalid, because, the order
was a review of the order dated May 10, 1965 and Lhe R.T.A. had no
power of review; (3) whether the order dated September 11, 1965, was
invalid because it was passed during the subsistence o

## Text

_Characters 0–39,888 of 54,016. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39888 for what follows._

•
-·-·
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
v.
SURI BALWANT REGL'LAR MOTOR SERVICE.
AMRA VA TI .~ ORS.
August 22, 1968
[J. C. SHAil, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
Mo/or Vehicles ACI (4 of 1939), ss. 48(1), 57(7)
and 58(1)-
0rder grantillK per1nit-Period of validity not mentioned-Effect of.-
Date of com111encement nor mentioned-Effect of.
Practice- ·Fillin1; up datr in earlier order-If re\·iev.'.
·If order grantin~ pennit can be
oral--Obligation
10 give
r1•asons
in1nzediarelt>.
Writ under Art. 226··-Conduct of part_v when pr?cfudes issue of.
On May 10. 1965, the R.T.A., after considering the applications by
the rcspondcnrs (priv;.1tc operators) for rene\\·al of their permits and the
application hy rhe appellant for a fresh grant of pcnnits, for the same
routes. p<l5Sed orders dismissing the applica1ions for rene\\':-ti and granting
substantive permits lo the appellant.
'fhe order wao; chairenged by the
private operators in \\Tit petitions and the High (-Ourt directed th;:Lt, pending the di~posal of the v.·rit petitions, status quo should he maintained hy
granting temporary permits to the private opcrarors.
'I"hereafter. \\·hile
the writ petitions were pending. the appellant and the private operators
filed " joint application o( compromise before the R. T.A. by which the
private operators agreed to \vithdraw the \\Tit petitions.
The R.1°.1\ .. on
Septernhcr 11, 1965. upon such assurance ;ind after hearing the parties,
tlirectcd that tbc appellant. which wa• granted suhst:antive pennil• by
order dated f\.1ay 10. 1965, v.·ould comrncnee operation on the routes
described in Schedule A to the order from November I, 1965. that the
private operators \\'ould operate on remporary permits on routes mentioned in Schedule B till June 30, 1967 and that the appellant would
commence operation on those routes from Julv 1, 1967.
With regard
to the routes 1nt!ntioned in Schedule C, the private operators agreed to,
surrendt..-r their permits in favour of the appellant hut, as the appellant
had not made <.1ny application for those routes. the R.T.A. decided to call
for applications a~ provided for in the :f\.1otor Vehicles Act, 1939.
On
October 8
I 965 the private operators withdrew the writ petitions, and
thereupon 'the R. l.A .. on Octoher 15. 1965. announced the decision taken
on Scptemher 11. 1965, and thereafter. invited appli~ations for .ttn routcs
nlentioned in S..:hcdulc C
lbc appellant .made its application. . The
private operators also applied, hut they applied not only for pcrm1B for
c Schedule roti:es. hut also .in respect of the B Sc_hedule routes.
On
April 5. 1967. permits \\'ere issued to the appella~t 1n respect of !he B
Schedule routes as per the orders dated ~ay ~O. 1 J65 and Septen1hcr I.I.
t 965, for a period of 5 years commt.'11Clng, ~ron1 Jt1.lv 1.. 1.967.
At ils
meeting on June 29, 1967, th~ R.T.A .. pa~scd resolutions 1n the presence
of the partieo; r.r:.nting suh<ifanllve permits in respect .of Schedule C roulL'"S
to the appellaiit. and rejecting the applications of .pnvare operators.
T,hc
minutes of the meeting v.'ere formally recorded 10 a. letter of July _o•
.1967, detailed reasons in support of the order v.·ere given, and the Je~cr
\\'as communicated to the prJvate operators.
The order dated June
_9,
A
B
c
D
E
F
-
G
H
-
..
-'
TRANSP. CORP. v. BALWANT SERVICE
8 0!}
A
1967 was challenged by the private operators in w'rit petitions and the
High Court allowed the petitions quashing the grant of permits to the
appellant on the 'routes described in Schedules B and C.
B
c
D
E
,y
G
H
In appeal to this Court, on the questions : (1) whether the order of
the R.T.A. dated May 10, 1965, was invalid because, (a) the period
of validity of the permit was not expressly mentioned, and (b) the order
did not mention the date of comtpencement of the period o'f the permit;
(2) whether the order of the R.T.A. dated September ll, 1965, fixing
the date of conimencement of the service was invalid, because, the order
was a review of the order dated May 10, 1965 and Lhe R.T.A. had no
power of review; (3) whether the order dated September 11, 1965, was
invalid because it was passed during the subsistence of the interim order
of the High Court maintainirig status quo; ( 4) whether in view of their
conduct, it was not open to the private operato'rs to apply for a writ for
quashing the order of the R.T.A. dated September 11, 1965; and (5)
whether the order of the R.T.A. dated June 29, 1967, was invalid,.because,
the order was oral and no reasons \Vere given by the R.T.A. immediately
for the order.
HELD: (1) (a) There is no statutory requirement that the R.T.A.
should expressly mention in its order granting permit under ·s. 48 ( 1)
the period for which the permit was to be granted. The order of the
R.T.A. should be construed in the language of s. 48 (1) which empowers
the R.T.A. to grant a stage carriage permit 'in accordance with the application' or 'with such modifications as it deems fit'.
As required by r. 80
of the Bombay Motor Vericles Rules, the appellant mentioned 5 years
as t:he period for which the permit was to be granted. Since the R.T.A.
did not make any modification it must be deemed that the grant was made
fo'r 5 years, in accordance with the application.
Therefore, the order
dated May 10, 1965 could not be held illegal on the ground that the
period \Vas not expressly mentioned. [815 H; 816 B-E]
(b) There is nothing in the Aot or in the Rules to suggest that the
R.T.A. is under an obligation to mention in the order of grant of permit
the actual date from which the permit was
to
be effective.
Under
s. 48 (3) (i) of the Act, the R.T.A. may specify as a condition that service
shall commence from a specified date.
But it is merely permissible and
does not' apply to the order of grant of a permit which is dealt with in
s. 48(1).
Jn the absence of any express statutory provision it must be
taken that the date of the commencement of the period of the permit
would be the date from which it was actually issued. Therefore, the order
of the R.T.A. was not invalid, because, ithe date of commencement was
not mentioned. [816 F-H]
Shree Laxnii Bus Transpo'rt Co. v. The R.T.A. Rajkot, 62 Born. L.R.
958, referred to.
(2) It is not correct ,to sav that the order of the R.T.A.
dated September 11, 1965, was an order of review of the previous order dated
May 10, 1965.
The later order of the R.T.A., fixing the date of commencement of the service was only supplemental and fiiled up an omission
in the previous order which was left intact. [817 E-FJ
(3) The order of the. R.T.A. dated September 11, 1965 was a conditional Qne which was intended to come into effect only after the writ
petiti~ns in. the High Court were withdr~"Yn by the private operators,
•nd It \Vas In fact announced after the petitions were withdrawn.
TherefO're. there is no violation of the interim order of the High Court. [818
B-C]
•
•
810
SU'RD-11' COURT REPORTS
[1969] IS.CR
( 4) 'fbc privaic operators \\'Cre parties to th;:-: order dated September
A
11, 196:5. h;id accepted th<1t Order. acted Upl)O it, and derived henelits :ind
;idvantagco;; from it tor nearly one year and nine months. Jn thos-~ circun1stanccs there \1;;1~ su;;h ;1cquit.:'>ccncc in the order on the r~1rt o'f the pri\·a:c
opcrator.s ;1., to dis.entitle them to a grant of ;1 \\T]I under Art. ~26 of thi.:
Constitution. [818 D-E. G·Hl
Moon .\fii/, Lui. v .• W. II. Mehcr.
A.LR.
1967
S.C.
1450.
1454.
B
followed.
(5) 'fhcrc is no provision either in the Act or the Rule"> \•ohich requires cith·~r cxprc-;..,ly or bv nccc."'"i~fry implication, that. thi.: R.T.A. should
give a \ ... Tiilcn dC(.;l'Sion y.;ith rcg.;ird to the gran1 ot a
~ta~c c;irri,1,μc pern11t
or to give
rc;1son~ therefor ~tlong \\ith the \\Tittcn decision.
'I'hereforc,
in 1hc :ibscnce ol anv statutory provision. there is nothing: \\"rong in
principle if an ;u.Jmini:.trative tribunal ~ivcs a decision or;illy
;ind subsequently reduce.; 10 \\Titing 1hc
re;ison~ 1hcrefor and comm11nica1cs
i~ to
C
the parties_ [82.'; Ci; 827 0-f.J
ProcedurL' in Engli ... h
la\~· referred to.
Bha}J(/l Raja \". Union of India, I 1967] 3 S.C.R. 30:!
and
Prag
/)as
Un1ar Vnishya \'. llnio11 of India. ('.1\. No. 657 of 1967, dated Augu:.t 17,
1967, held inapplicahlc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JvRISDicno:-i : Civil Appeals Nos. 825
to 851of1968.
Appeals frnm the judμment and order dated
October
19,
20. 1967 of the Bomhay High Court. J\'agpur Bench in Special
Civil Applications Nos. 575 to 596. 634. 540 and 570 to 572 of
D
1967 ;·~specti'"~ly.
E
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, Santosh Chatterjee
and
D. P. Singh, for the appellant (in all the appeals).
M. N. l'hadke. C. G. Madholkar and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for
respondent 'Jo. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 832. 840, 842, 844 and 847
to 851of1968).
F
M. IV. Phndke, M. W. P11ra11ik and Naunit Lal. for
respondent No. I (in C. As. Nos. 825 to 831 and 833 to 838 of 1968).
R. V. S. Mani. for respondent Ko. I (in C. A. No. 845 of
1968).
The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. These appeals are brought by certificate from
the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated October 20, 1967
in Special Civil Applications Nos. 540. 570 to 572, 575 to 596
and 634 of 1967 filed under Ans. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The appellant is the State Road Transport Corporation of the0
State of Maharashtra constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act (64 of 1950). Respondent No. I who is a private
G
H
A
B
j
c
D
E
F
G
H
TRANSP. CORP. V. BALWANT SERVICE (Ramaswami, J.) 811
stage carriage operator alongwith other such private operators,
had applied for renewal of stage carriage permits which they were
holding and which permits were to expire on March 31, 1961.
The Provincial Transport Services (the predecessor of the appellant) had been also operating the stage· carriage service in the
adjoining and nearby areas and had made applications sometime
in January, 1961 for grant of substantive permits for the same
routes.
The Provincial Transport Services
had
published
a
·scheme under s. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the 'Act') under which it proposed to take over several routes in the region including the routes in respect of which
renewal applications were made by the appellant and the private
operators.
The scheme was approved by the Chief Minister of
the then Bombay State. The approval was, however, challenged
by private operators in Special Civil Application No. 86 of 1962
in the High Court.
By its order dated 29/30th August, 1963
passed in that case, the High Court quashed the scheme with the
direction that the matter should be reconsidered by th~ approving
authority. The scheme was thereafter not pursued.
By a notification dated June 10, 1961 under s. 47A of the
Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950 the Central Government provided for the amalgamation of the Bombay Road Transport Corporation with the Commercial Undertaking of the State
Government namely the Provincial Transport Services.
It was
also provided in the notification that any application for permit
made by the Provincial Transport Services would be deemed to
be an application made by the Bombay Road Transport Corporation. In other words, the Provincial Transport Services was
substituted by the State Road Transport Corporation which is
now known as Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant').
The applications for renewal of permits and applications for
su"bstantive permits were considered by the Regional Transport
Authority, Nagpur (hereinafter called the 'R.T.A.') on October
9 and 10, 1964 and the R.T.A. passed a common order by which
all tlie applications for renewal made by private operators were
rejected and the permits were granted to the appellant.
This
order of the RT.A. was challenged bv the private operators in
Special Civil Application No. 603 of 1964.
One of the grounds
on which the order was challenged was that the RT.A. was not
validly constituted. By its order dated January 14, 1965,
the
High Court quashed the order passed by the RT.A., holding that
it was not properly constituted on October 13, 1964 when it
passed the common order. Thereafter the applications for rene·
wal of permits and for fresh grant of permits were again considered.by the RT.A. at its meeting held on May 10, 1965. By its
order on the same date, the R.T.A. dismissed all the applications
•
...
•
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969) ! S.C.R.
for renewal made by the private operator:. and directc<l that
A
substantive permits for these routes should be granted to the
appellant.
The order of the R.T.A. dated May 10, 1965 was
challenged by the private operators in different Civil Applications.
One of the apphcations was Special Civil Application No. 488 of
1965.
In this application, one of the prayers was to the effect
that pending the decision of the application the R.T.A. should
s
be directed to maintain srarus quo.
Clause 3 of the prayer was
to the following effect :
"That pending the decision· of this application the
R.T.A. Na)!pur be directed to maintain status quo l'iZ ..
to grant temporary permit to the
petitioner as it has
been done upto now on the routes
Chikhli--Buldana
and Chikhli-Deulgaonraja on which the petitioner is
operating his vehicles."
On June 4, 1965 Paranjpc, J. ordered as follows
"Ruic.
Expedite hearing at Kagpur on 21-6-1965.
c
!n the meantime R.T.A. l'\a~pur to maintain srarus quo
D
m terms of Clause 3."
The interim order was subsequently confirmed by the High Court
and all the petitions were directed to be heard together. ·
During th.~ pcndency of the Special Civil Appiications in the
Hi!'.h Court an application ""'" made to the R.T.A. JOtntly <ln
behalf of the appellant and the private operators.
A copy of
that application is included as document no. 17 in Special Civil
Application '.\'o. 575 of 1967.
The joint application stated that
the appellant and the private operators. with a view to end all
litigation, had agreed to settle the matter on certain terms. One
of the terms was that the Special Civil applications filed were to
be withdrawn.
The application for compromise was considered
by the R.T.A. at its meeting held on September 10 and I!. 1965.
The JJri,·atc operator; including r~spondem :---,1. 1 assured the
R.T.A. thai they would withdraw the petitions
pending in
the
Hi~h Court.
Upon such assurance the R.T.A. considered
the
m;t:cr at the meeting and after hearing the parties decided that
the ~rrellant who was granted substantive permits by its order
dated May IO. 1965. would commence operation on the routes
described in Sch. 'A' from November I. 1965. In regard to the
routes mentioned in Sch. 'Tl' for which also the appellant
had
been granted substantive permits by the order of
the
R.T.A.
dated May 10, 1965. the appellant was to be permitted to commence operation from July !. 1965 and the private operator< including respondent \lo. I were to be allowed to operate on the11e
routes on temporary permits uptil June 30. 1967. This intervaf
E
F
G
H
-
A
B
c
D
E
F
,
G
H
TRANSP. CORP. v. BALWANT SERVICE (Ramaswami, J.) 813>
•
of time was given to the P!ivate ~perators .appare~tly to help.
them to wind up their busmess without havrng to mcu~ any loss
and to assure certainty of better transport to the public. With
regard to the third category of routes covered by Sch: 'C' of the
order of the RT.A., the private operators were operating on substantive permits which they agreed to surrender in favour of _the
appellant.
The appellant, however, had not m~de any a~phca
tion till then for these routes.
The RT.A. decided that it had
to consider these routes on merits by inviting applications as provided under the Act since the private operators holding substantive permits in respect of these routes were voluntarily surrendering them.
Subsequently, the Secretary, RT.A. on application&
made by the parties, granted temporary permits to the appellant
in respect of 20 of these routes and to the private operators in
respect of 22 other routes.
The decisions were actually reached
by the RT.A. in presence of all the parties and subject to the
condition that the private operators would withdraw their petitions pending in the High Court. It appears that on October 8,
1965 the private, operators including respondent No. 1 withdrew
the petitions from the High Court and informed the RT.A. of.
such withdrawal.
The R.T.A. thereupon on October 15, 1965,
announced its decisions which it had taken on September 10/11,
1965.
Thereafter the RT.A. invited applications in respect of
Sch. 'C' routes but the private operators including
respondent
no. 1 made applications not only in respect of Sch. 'C' routes including those which were being operated by the appellant, but
in respect of Sch. 'B'. routes as well.
These applications were
made during the month of February, 1967.
The appellant had
also made applications in respect of Sch. 'C' rouies in January,
1967 in response to a notification of the RT.A. On April 5,
1967: the Secretary, R.T.A. issued permits to the appellant for
a penod of five years, commencing from July 1, 1967 in respect
of Sch. 'B' rou'.es, actin~ upon the order of R.T.A. dated May
10. 1965 grantmg permits to the appellant and the subsequent
order of the R.T.A. dated September 10/11, 1965 allowing the
appellant to commence operations from July 1, 1967.
The applications of the parties for substantive permits in respect of Sch. 'C' routes and the applications made by the private
operators in respect of Sch. 'B' routes, were considered by the
RT.A. in its meeting held on June 28/29, l967. After consi~eri_ng each case on ~erits, the RT.A. granted substantive permits m respect of Sch. C' routes to the appellant and rejected the
applications of the private operators for the same. With regard
to the applications of the private operators in respect of Sch. 'B'
routes and in respect of some routes of Sch. 'C' for which they
had ~PP)ied after expiry of the date prescribed for making of such
P.ppl1cat10ns, the RT.A. expressed the view that such applications could not be maintained in respect of Sch. 'B' routes since
• 81-1
SCl'ROIE COCRT RlPORTS
[ l 969] I S.C.R.
substantive pennits for those routes had already been granted by
the R.T.A. in favour of the appellant on May I 0, 1965.
As
rcg~rds Sch. 'C' routes, the applications of the private operators
were held to be not maintainable as they were tiled late.
Thereaft~r the private operators including respondent no. I voluntarily
converted their applications into applications for additional timings or trips on those routes.
'Ilic RT.A. thereupon decided to
postpone consideration of these applications for additio11~1l timings in order to enquire and satisfy itself about the existence of
the additicnal need.
This order of the RT.A. dated June 28,'29.
1967 was challenged by the priva1.e operators including respon-
<:lcm no. I in Special Civil Applicalions
which are the subjectmatlcr of these appeals. By its judgment dated October 20. 196 7.
the Bombay High Court allowed the Special Ci"il Applications
an<l granted a \\"I it in the nature cf ccrtior11ri qua~hitl!! the crdcrs
-0f the R.T.A. dated September 10/J I. 1965 and June
28/29,
1967 and the permits issued by the Secretary.
R.T.A. to
the
appellant on April 5, 1967.
With regard to the order. of
the
R.T.A. dated May I 0, 1965 granting 'subs1anti\'e permit> to the
appellant in respect of Sch. 'A' and Sch. 'B' routes. the High Court
held that the said order had become "unworkable" in r~spect of
Sch. 'R' routes and hence to that extent quashed that order.
The first question arising in this case is
\vhcthcr
the
l-ligh
-Court wa' right in takin_g the view that the order of the R.T.A.
dated Mav I 0. 1965 granting substantive permits to the appellant
wa, invalid mcrclv because : (I l the
n~rind of v"lidi1v nf 1hc
permit was not ex.pressly mentioned. and (2) the order does not
mention the commencement of the period of
the
permit.
As
regards
th.~ first ground, there is no statutory requirement that
the R.T.A. is required to expressly mention in its order for what
period the permit was to be granted.
Jn this connection reference
mav he made to ss. 46. 48 and 58 ( l )(a) of
the
Ac~ which
-state :
"46. An application for a
permit in
rcsncct of a
service of stai!c carriae:cs or to use a particular niotor
v~hicle as a stage car~iage (in this Chapter referred to
as a stage carriag.~ permit) shall. as far as may he, contain the following particulars. namely :
(a) the route or routes or the area or areas to ·.vhich
the application relates;
(h) the mun her of vehicles it is proposed to operate
in relation to each route or area and the type
and seatin_g capacity of each such vehicle;
(c) the minimum and maximum number of
daily
•
<crvices proposed to he provided in relation to
A
8
c
D
E
F
'
G
H
A
-
·C
'
D
E
F
<G
H
TRANSP. CORP. V. BALWANT SERVICE (Ramaswami, J.)
8 !5
(d)
(e)
each route or area and the time-table of the
normal services;
the number of vehicles intended to be kept in
reserve to maintain the service and to provide
for special occasions;
the arrangements intended to be made for the
housing and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and convenience of passengers and for the
storage and safe custody of luggage;
(f) such other matters as may be prescribed."
"48. ( 1) Subject to the provisions of s. 47, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application
made to it under section 46, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such
modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a
permit :
Provided that no such permit shall be granted in
respect of any route or area not specified in the application.
·
(2) Every stage carriage permit shall be expressed
to be valid only for a specified route or routes or for a
specified area.
(3) The Regional
Transport
Authority,
if
it
decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the
permit for a service of stage carriages of a specified
description or for one or more particular stage carriages,
and may, subject to any rules that may be made under
this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the
following conditions, namely :
(i) that the service or any specified part
thereof
shall be commenced with effect from a >pecified date;
"
"58. (1) (a) A stage carriage permit or a contract
carriage permit other than a temporary permit issued
under section 62 shall be effective without renewal for
such period, not less than three years and not more
than five years, as the Regional Transport Authority
may specify in the permit."
It is true that s. 58 (1 )(a) provides that the duration of the
permit should be not less than three years and not more than
five years as the R.T.A. m~y specify in the permit.
But there
is nothing in s. 48 ( 1) of the Act which states that the R.T.A.
is ,.equired to specify expressly in the order of the grant of the
permit as to for what period the permit is to be effeciive. It is
•
•
SIG
Slil'REME COLRT REPORTS
( 1969 j ; S.C.R.
manifest however in the present case that the period of validity
of the permit should be deemed to be five years because the order
of the R.T.A. should be construed as an order of grant of a
stage carria,!:e permit "in accordance with the application" under
'· 48 ( I ) ot the Act.
In other words the order of the R.T.A.
dated May IO, 1965 should be construed in the context of the
language of s. 48 (I) of the Act which empowers the R.T.A. to
grant a stage carriage permit "in accordance with the application" or "with such modifications as it deems fit or
lo
refuse
to grant such a permit". In the present case, the R.T.A. did not
make any modification and it must therefore be deemed that the
grant of the pem1it was made in accordance with the application of the appellant which expressly declares the period of
validity of the permit applied for to be of five years (sec the application of the appellant printed at page 205 of Vol. n of the
Paper Book).
Reference may be made in this
connection
to
Ruic 80 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules which provides for
the forms of application for permits and to Form P. St. S.A.
prescribed under that Rule which
requires the
application
to
mention for what period the stage carriage permit is to be granted.
We are accordingly of the opinion that the order of the
R.T.A. dated May 10, 1965 cannot be held to be illegal merely
because the period of validity of the permit has not been expressly
mentioned therein.
It was, however, argued by Mr. Phadke on
behalf of respondent no. 1 that the period of commencement of
the permit should have been mentioned hy the RT.A. in its order
of May 10. 1965 and the omission of the R.T.A. to do so invalidated the order.
It was pointed out hy Mr. Phadkc that the
order of the grant of permit was made on May 10. 1965 hy the
R.T.A. hut the permits were actually issued to the appellant on
April 5. 1967 to be eflcctivc for five years from that date. There
is, however, nothing in the Act or in the Rules to suggest that the
RT.A. is under an obligation to mention in the order of grant
of permit the actual date from which the permit was to he eflectivc.
Mr. Phadkc. referred to s. 48 ( 3 )( i) of the Act which
states that the RT.A .. if it decid.~s to grant a permit. mav grant
the permit for a service of stage carriage of a specified description and maY. subject to anv rules that may he made under the
Act. attach to the permit a condition that the service or any specified part thereof shall be commenced with efleet from a specified
date.
It is manifest that this statutorv provision is merclv permissive and it does not apply to the order of grant of a permit
which is dealt with in s. 48 (I) of the Act.
Jn the absence of
anv express statutory provision it must he taken that the date of
the commencement of the period of the pennit would be
the
date from which the permit is actuallv issued which is April .~.
1967 in the present case.
The view that we have expressed is
home out by the decision of the Bombay High Court in
Shree
A
...
c
D
E
F
G
H
-
' -
A
B
E
F
H
TRANSP. CORP. v. BALWANT SERVICE (Ramaswami, J.) 817
Laxmi Bus Transport Co. v. The R.T.A. Rajkot(') in which
it was said that when an application for renewal ofa stage c;arriage
~rmit is granted under s. 58 of the Act, subsequent to the date
on which the period of the permit expires, the period specified
in the renewal cannot be made to commence retrospectively from
the date of the expiry of the permit sought to be renewed but will
commence from the date on which it is actually renewed. Hence,
it is not possible to accept the argument of Mr. Phadke that the
order of the RT.A. dated May IO, 1965 is illegal merely be-
.cause the date of commencement of the operation of the permit
is not specified therein. In our opinion, the High Court was in
error in holding that the order of the RT.A. dated May 10, 1965
was legally invalid either because the period of validity of the
permit or the date of commencement was not mentioned therein.
The next contention put forward by Mr. Phadke is that the
order of the RT.A. dated September 10/11, 1965 fixing the date
of the commencement of the service was an order which
was
tantamount to a review of the previous order of the RT.A. dated
May l 0, 1965 and as no express power of review is. conferred
on the RT.A. by any provision of the Act, the order of September 10/11, 1965 was illegal and ultra vires. In this connection
Mr. Phadke referred to the decisions of this Court in Harbhajan
Singh v. Karam Singh( 2 ) and Chunibhui v. Narayanrao( 3 ) and
contended that a. tribunal of limited jurisdiction has no inherent
power to review its own orders except in the matter of clerical
error. We consider that there is no substance in the argument
put forward on behalf of respondent no. 1. It is not correct to
say that the order of the RT.A. dated September 10/11, 1965
is an order of review of the previous order dated May 10, 1965,
because the later order of the RT.A. fixing the date of commencement of the service is only supplemental and filled up an
omission in the previous order of May 10, 1965 which was left
intact.
We pass on to consider the next question arising in this case,
namely, whether the order of the RT.A. dated September 10/11,
1965 was invalid because it was passed during the subsistence of
the stay order of the High Court dated June 4, 1965 in Special
Civil Application No. 488 of 1965.
The High Court has taken
the view that the order of the RT.A. dated September 10/11,
1965 was invalid because it was made on a compromise reached
by the parties during the operation of the stay order of the High
Court in Civil Application No. 488 of 1965.
In our opinion, the·
High Court was not right in taking the view that the RT.A. had
violated the stay order. The parties had themselves approached
the RT.A. on the basis of the compromise which was meant to
{fi 62 Born.LR. 958.
(2) A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 641.
(3) A.LR. 1965 S.C. 1457.
•
•
818
StiPRF~tF C:OtJRT RFP<lRTS
[I 969] I S.C.R.
put an end to a long protracted litigation and which allowed time
to the private operators to wind up their business.
On a perusal
of the order of the R.T.A. dated September 10/11, I %5 it is
manifest that the R.T.A. was careful to say that the compromise
will come into effect only after the withdrawal of the writ petitions by the private operators.
To put it differently, the order
made by the R.T.A. on September I 0; 11, 1965 was a conditional
order, namely, an order which was intended to come into effect
only after the writ petitions in the High Court were withdrawn
by the privat.~ operators.
le is not disputed tliat the order of the
R.T.A., though dated September JO, 11.
1965
was
formally
announced on October 16. 1965 after the private operators had
withdrawn the writ petitions on October 8. 1965.
Jn these circumstances we hold that there is no violation of the stav order
of the High Court and the order of the R.T.A. dated Septemher
I 0'11. 1965 which was formailv announced on
October
16,
1965 is not in anv way invalid.
Jn any event; we are s:11isfied that it is not open to the private
operators including respondent no. 1 to apply for a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the order of the RT.A. dated
September 10/11, 1965 in view of their conduct. It is not disputed that the private operators including respondent no. 1 were
present in the meeting of the R.T.A. held on September 10/11,
1965 either personally or through duly appointed Counsel.
Respondent no. I and the other private operators assured the R.T.A.
at the hearing that they would withdraw the writ petitions pending in the High Court.
On such assurances and subject to
the
actual withdrawal of the writ petitions in terms of the assurance,
the R.T.A. considered the matter in the said meeting and after
hearing the parties. made an order giving elTect to the compromise.
It is obvious that the private operators including respondent no. I were parties to the order dated
September
I 0/ 11,
1965. had accepted that order. acted upon it and derived benefits and advantages from it for nearly on.z
ye;tr and 9
months.
But for the said order which susnended the operation of the permit of the appellant till July I, 1967 the private operators includin.g respondent no. I could not have got temporary permits to
operate on the same routes as no stage carriage permits could be
issued under s. 62 of the Act during the subsistence 0f substaniive pern1its.
In these circurnslanccs \Ve consider thut there \Vas
such acquiescence in the RT.A.\ order datci I 0/ 11. September
1965 on the nart of respondent no. I and other private operators
as to discntitlc them to a grant of a writ under Art. 226 of the
Constitution. It is wcll-e<tablished that the writ of certiorari will
not be ~ranted in a case where there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as. tak~ in
conjunction with the lapse of time
and
other - circumstances,
A.
B
c
D
E
F
-·
.....
•
G
>
...
•
•
A
B
c
D
E
TRANSP. CORP. V. BALWANT SERVICE (Ramaswami, !.) 819·
causes prejudice io the adverse party. The principle is to a great
extent similar to though not identical with, the exercise of dis-
~retio~ in the Court of Chancery. The principle has been clearly
stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper
Armstronfi Hurd Abram Farewell, and John Kemp(') as follows:
"Now the doctrine of !aches in Courts of Equity is
not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it
would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which
might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it,
or where by his conduct and neglect he has,
though
perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other
party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable
to place him if the remedy were afterwards io be
asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of thne and delay ·
are most material. But in every case, if an argument
against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded
upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting
to a bar by any statnt.~ of limitations the validity of that
defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable.
Two circumstances, always
important in such
cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of
the acts done during the inierval, which might affect
either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice
in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates
to the remedy."
This passage was cited with approval by this Court in a recent
case-The Moon Mills Ltd. v. M. R. Meher, President,
Industrial Court, Bombay('). In our opinion the principle of this decision applies to the present case and since respondent no. 1 and
F
the other private operators had not even pleaded any
circumstances justifying the delay or their conduct, the High Court was
in error in granting a writ of certiorari in their favour .
G
H
· We next proceed to consider the question regarding the
validity of the order of the R.T.A. dated June 29, 1967. Tue
High Court has taken the view that this order is invalid for two
reasons : ( 1) the order of the R.T.A. is oral and not in writing,
and (2) no reasons were hnmediaiely given by the R.T.A. for
the order.
In the present case, what actually happened was that
the orders of the R.T.A. were made at its meeting held on June
28/29, 1967.
Respondent no. 1 was admittedly present at this
meeting and knew of the orders of the R.T.A. It is also not dis~
outed that the orders made on June 28/29, 1967 were in the·
form of resolutions and the minuies of the meeting were formally
"recorded on July 20, 1967 and communicated to respondent no. t
'
(1) (1874) 5 P.C. 221,239.
(2) A.1.R. 1967 S.C. 1450,1454.
•
•
.s 20
SUPREME COCRT REPORTS
[ 1969] I S.C R.
and the other private operators on the same date.
The letter of
A
July 20, 1967 communicating the resolution dated June 28/29,
1907 is Anr.ernre ·N' to the Writ Petition )io. 634 of 1967.
In
this letter detailed reasons arc given by the R.T.A. in support of
its order granting stage carriage pennits to the appellant for the
routes in question. In our opinion, the procedure adopted by the
RT.A. does not contravene any provision of the Act or Rules
B
made thereunder and no legal principle has been violated. Reference may be made in this connection to s. 57 of the Act and
Rules 67 and 68 of the Rules which
are
to
the
following
dw:
-
"S. 57. (I) An application for a contract carriage
permit or a private carrier's pennit may be made at any
C
time.
(2) An application for a stage carriage pennit or a
public carrier's pennit shall be made not less than six
weeks before the date on which it is
desired that the
pennit shall take effect, or, if the Regional Transport
Authority appoints dates for the receipt of such applications, on such dates.
( 3) On receipt of an
application
for
a
stage
carriage pennit or a public carrier's pennit.
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 thirty days from such publication, on which,
and the time and place at which. the application and
any representations received will be considered :
Provided that, if the grant of any pennit in accordance with the application or with modifications would
have the effect of increasing the number of
vehicles
operating in the region, or in any area or on any route
within the region. under the class of permits to which
the application relates, beyond the limit fixed in that behalf under sub-section (3) of section 47 or ·sub-section
(2) of section 55, as the case may be,
the Regional
Transpori Authority may summarily refuse the application without following the procedure laid down in this
sub-section.
( 4) No representation in connection with an application referred to in sub-section (3) shall be considered
by the Regional Transport Authority unless it is made
•
D
E
F
G
H
•
•
,1
,.
i r
lliI
-
•
I
A
B
c
D
TRANSP. CORP. \". BAL WANT SERVICE (Ramaswami, J.)
8 21
in writing before the appointed date and unles~ a copy
thereof is furnished simultaneously to the applicant by
the person making such representation.
( S) When any representation such . as is referred
to in sub-section ( 3) is made, the Reg10nal Transport
Authority shall dispose of the application at a public
hearing at which the applicant and the person making
the representation shall have an opportunity of being
heard either in person or by a duly authorised representative.
( 6) When any representation has been made by
the persons or authorities referred to in section SO to
the effect that the number of contract carriages for
which permits have already been granted in any region
or any area within a region is sufficient for or in excess
of the needs of the region or of such area, whether such
representation is made in connection with a particular
application for the grant of a confract carriage permit
or otherwise, the Regional Transport Authority may
take any such steps as it considers appropriate for the
hearing of the representation in the presence of any
persons likely to be affected thereby.
(7) When a Regional Transport Authority refuses
an application for a permit of any kind, it shall give
E
to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal.
F
G
H
•
"
"Rule 67.
Regional
Transport
Authorities.-
( 1) The Regional Transport Authgrify shall meet at
such. times and at such places as its Chairman may
appomt.
Provided that it shall meet not less than once in each
month unless the State Transport Authority otherwise
directs.
(2) Not less than 3 days' notice shall be given to
every member of any meetlng of the Regional Transport Autho,rify.
(3) A member of the Regional Transport Authority shall attend at least six meetings in each financial
year. The State Government may at any time remove
any such member from office on his failure to attend
the minimum number of meetings fixed under this rule.
The State Government may also remove from
office
any member for any other cause .
LISup.CI/69-6
•
•
822
SL.f'REME COllRT REPORTS
[1969], SCR
( 5) Where a Regional Transport Authority consists of more than three members. the number of members whose presence shall constitute a quorum shall
be one half of its members and where it consists of
three members, the quornm shall be two. If within
half an hour from the time appointed for the meeting
a quorum is not present, the meeting shall be adjourned
to such day and at such time and place as the Chairman or the Presiding Officer nominated under sub-rule
(6) may appoint: and if at the adjourned meeting a
quorum is not present.