# MOHD. IBRAHIM ETC v. STATE

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 474
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-04-30
- **Bench:** M. ffIDAYAHCLLAH, C.J .. A. N. Ray, I. D. DuA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohd-ibrahim-etc-v-state-5087
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), ss. 47, 57 and 63-Scope of i11 re/a.
tioa to per1nits h'ithin. a region.
inter-regional permits and inter-State
pcnnits.
( n A Regional Transport Authority is not required under s. 47(3) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to take into consideration any representati9ns of the nature mentioned ins. 47(1) of the Act because there is first
total absence ins. 47(3) of any reference to representations mentioned in
s. 4 7 (1) and secondly the Regional Transport Authority
while
acting
under s. 47(3) docs not deal with any dispute between operators and is
confined to its own administrative policy. [480 A. D-F]
Neither the
provision of a right of appeal
under s, 64 rend with
'" 147(2) to a 'person aggrieved' by an order under s. 47(3) nor the right
to apply for a revision under s. 64A. is itself decisive of the true function
<'f the Regional Trnnsport Authority under s. 47(3), and as to whether
the said authority has to grant hearing to persons at the time of fixing the
number o'f permits.
While acting under s. 47(3) the Regional Transport
Authority is the master of its own procedure,
because it does not de<il
with individual or competing rights of operators, but is required to arrive
objectively at its own conclusion independent of any application or representation hy operators. [48 l B-EI
Therefore. the Regional Trnnsport Authority is not obliged to hear
operators while exercising jurisdiction undct s. 47(3) in fixing the limit of
number of permits. \481 El
(2) When the Regional Transport Authority approves a proposal of
the Secretary of the Authority to open a new route or to have an additional permit on an existing route
and therefore
notifications under
s. 57(2) are made in respect of grunt of permit on a new route or an
additional pern1it on nn existing route. it cun reasonably be _held that there
has been a valid order under s. 47(3 J, because, it is not the form hut the
suhstanr.e of the order that has to he considered. i487 D-r::; 1•. Cl
( 3) The limit of number of permits fixed by the Regional Transport
Authority undct• s. 4713) cannot be modified by the Regional Transport
Authority when exercising the separate power of granting permits under
s. 48, or even by the State Appellate Transport Authority dealing with
appeals against the grant of permits.
Section 48 begins with the words
'subject to the provisions of s. 47' meaning thereby that the jurisdiction
to grant permits is subject to the determination o'f the limit of numb~r of
permits, It is in the scheme of the Act that limit should be fixed before
the grant of permits and proper effect can be given to these provisions by
deciding upon the limit of number of permits before application for grant
A
c
D
E
G
H
./
IBRAHIM V. S.T.A. TRIBUNAL
475
A
of permits are invited un<ler s. 57(2) of the Act an<l in other cases before
application for grant of permits are published under s. 57(3) of the Act
to enable persons to make representations.
The central idea is that applicants and those who make representations should all know the limit of
number of perni.its to he granted in ordet to ensure free ;;in<l fair competition [485 A-G. D; 501 A-Cl
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
( 4) Though the scheme o'f the statute has not been fOllowed in all the
appeals in the present case, the Regional Transport Authority fixed the
:;ii1it of number of pcrmitc;; before it actually considered the applications
for grant of permit and all parties competed for the grant on that basis
and no one expressed any grievance at the time.
In the facts and circutttstanc1.."S of the present appeals it \VaS found that there was a valid order
under s. 4 7 ( 3) of the Act and further there was a notification under
s. 57(21 of the Act. [502 B-El
Abdul Matec•11 '" Ram Kai/tL1·/1 Pandey,
[1963]
3 S.C.R. 523, Mis.
!a)'ll Ram Motur Sarice '" S. Rajaratliinan, C.A. No. 95165 dt. 27-10-67.
Ba/111rnn v. Swte Transport. Appdlal'e A11tl1ority, M.P .. C.A. No. 727/65
I.It. 22-3-68 and R. Ohi/aswami Naidu v. Addi. Swt

## Text

_Characters 0–39,694 of 82,064. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39694 for what follows._

474
MOHD. IBRAHIM ETC.
v.
STATE
T~ANSPORT APPELi.ATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
ETC.
April 30, 1970
(M. ffIDAYAHCLLAH, C.J .. A. N. RAY AND I. D. DuA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), ss. 47, 57 and 63-Scope of i11 re/a.
tioa to per1nits h'ithin. a region.
inter-regional permits and inter-State
pcnnits.
( n A Regional Transport Authority is not required under s. 47(3) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to take into consideration any representati9ns of the nature mentioned ins. 47(1) of the Act because there is first
total absence ins. 47(3) of any reference to representations mentioned in
s. 4 7 (1) and secondly the Regional Transport Authority
while
acting
under s. 47(3) docs not deal with any dispute between operators and is
confined to its own administrative policy. [480 A. D-F]
Neither the
provision of a right of appeal
under s, 64 rend with
'" 147(2) to a 'person aggrieved' by an order under s. 47(3) nor the right
to apply for a revision under s. 64A. is itself decisive of the true function
<'f the Regional Trnnsport Authority under s. 47(3), and as to whether
the said authority has to grant hearing to persons at the time of fixing the
number o'f permits.
While acting under s. 47(3) the Regional Transport
Authority is the master of its own procedure,
because it does not de<il
with individual or competing rights of operators, but is required to arrive
objectively at its own conclusion independent of any application or representation hy operators. [48 l B-EI
Therefore. the Regional Trnnsport Authority is not obliged to hear
operators while exercising jurisdiction undct s. 47(3) in fixing the limit of
number of permits. \481 El
(2) When the Regional Transport Authority approves a proposal of
the Secretary of the Authority to open a new route or to have an additional permit on an existing route
and therefore
notifications under
s. 57(2) are made in respect of grunt of permit on a new route or an
additional pern1it on nn existing route. it cun reasonably be _held that there
has been a valid order under s. 47(3 J, because, it is not the form hut the
suhstanr.e of the order that has to he considered. i487 D-r::; 1•. Cl
( 3) The limit of number of permits fixed by the Regional Transport
Authority undct• s. 4713) cannot be modified by the Regional Transport
Authority when exercising the separate power of granting permits under
s. 48, or even by the State Appellate Transport Authority dealing with
appeals against the grant of permits.
Section 48 begins with the words
'subject to the provisions of s. 47' meaning thereby that the jurisdiction
to grant permits is subject to the determination o'f the limit of numb~r of
permits, It is in the scheme of the Act that limit should be fixed before
the grant of permits and proper effect can be given to these provisions by
deciding upon the limit of number of permits before application for grant
A
c
D
E
G
H
./
IBRAHIM V. S.T.A. TRIBUNAL
475
A
of permits are invited un<ler s. 57(2) of the Act an<l in other cases before
application for grant of permits are published under s. 57(3) of the Act
to enable persons to make representations.
The central idea is that applicants and those who make representations should all know the limit of
number of perni.its to he granted in ordet to ensure free ;;in<l fair competition [485 A-G. D; 501 A-Cl
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
( 4) Though the scheme o'f the statute has not been fOllowed in all the
appeals in the present case, the Regional Transport Authority fixed the
:;ii1it of number of pcrmitc;; before it actually considered the applications
for grant of permit and all parties competed for the grant on that basis
and no one expressed any grievance at the time.
In the facts and circutttstanc1.."S of the present appeals it \VaS found that there was a valid order
under s. 4 7 ( 3) of the Act and further there was a notification under
s. 57(21 of the Act. [502 B-El
Abdul Matec•11 '" Ram Kai/tL1·/1 Pandey,
[1963]
3 S.C.R. 523, Mis.
!a)'ll Ram Motur Sarice '" S. Rajaratliinan, C.A. No. 95165 dt. 27-10-67.
Ba/111rnn v. Swte Transport. Appdlal'e A11tl1ority, M.P .. C.A. No. 727/65
I.It. 22-3-68 and R. Ohi/aswami Naidu v. Addi. Swte Tran.l'port Appellate
Trib11nal, Mcu/ra.I', [1969.\ 1 S.C.R. 730, followed.
(5) Section 4713) will not apply to inter-State permits, because, the
provision relates to n Regional Transport Auth,ority limiting the number
of permits in the reRion <Jr in <Ill)' specified arta or on any specified ro11te
within the reRion.
It is confined in its operation in or within the region.
Sections 45 and 6~ e•tablish that in the case of an inter-State permit an
application has to he made to the concerned Regional Transport Authority
under s. 45 and the permit has to bo countersigned hy the apirropriate
authority conccrnetl of the other State under s. 63, and the provisions of
s. 57 need not he followed for the grant of counter-signatures. Sections
63A, 63B and 63C r~fer to inter-State Transport' Commission to be estab·
lished by the Central Government for dealing with inter-State permits. In
the absence of directions by such Commission or mies by the Central
Government, the only way of harmonising the powers and functions of
Road Transport Authorities in relation to inter-State routes. is that they
·;hould exercise their powe" within their respective spheres of granting
and countcr-.,igning permits by agreement und accord.
[483 D-H]
Similarly. in viow of the fact that s. 47(3) in restricted
in its field
in nr ll'itliin the re1fi.,11, its provisions do not apply to inter~regional permits
also. Section contemplates rules and conditions subject to which and the
extent to which, a permit shall be valid in another region within the State
without counter-signature. but in the absence of such rules, the relevant
authorities will have to ensure agreement and act in concert. [484 F-H]
The numher o'f pcl·n1its in u region
can be fixed
hy the Regional
Transport Au1hori1y o( that region but it will be for that. region only. The
num.ber of permits for inter-State as well as inter-regional routes, beyond
the frontier
of
lhc region,
can only
be determined by agreement.
When
the authorilies
in the
two
regions . have
thus agreed to
?P~n a new route or to have ·~n .additional
ve~icle and applications are
invited for the grant ot a permit m the case of inter-State or inter-regional
permits, though s. 47(3) does not apply, to such routes, it will amount
to an order, deciding upon the number of permits arrived at bv agreement,
hefore granting the permits.
[499 B-Dl
· -
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] I S.C.R.
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2322
of 1970 etc.
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated October 27, 1969
etc. of the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 2709 of 1968
etc.
K. K. Venugopal and R. Gopa/akrishnan, for the appellant
A
(in C.As. Nos. 2322 and 2378 of 1969).
B
C. S. Prakasha Rao and R. Gopa/akrishnan, for the appellants
(in C.A. Nos. 2453-2456 of 1969 etc.)
N. G. Krishna Iyengar and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2379 of 1969 etc.)
R. Gopa/akrishnan, for the appellants (in C.A. No. L608 of
1969) and respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 2341 of 1969).
S. Mohan Kumaramanga/am, M. K. Ramamurrhi, M. N.
Rangachari, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellants
(in C.A. No. 2332 of 1969).
M. N. Ran:gachari, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, fer the
appellants (in C.A. Nos. 2323 of 1969 etc.)
M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyama/a Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for
the appellants (in C.A. Nos. 2478 of 1969 etc.)
c
D
M. K. Ramamurthi, V. Subramanian and K. Jayaram, for the
E
appellants (in C.A. No. 2338 of 1969).
V. Subramanian and K. Jayaram, for the appellan'.s (in C.A..
No. 2339 of 1969 etc.)
K. Thiruma/ai and K. Jayaram, for the appellants (i:1 C.A.
Nos. 2353 of 1969 etc.)
F
A. R. Ramanathan and K. Jayaram, for the appellants
(in
C.A. No. 8 of 1970).
V. T. Gopa/an and K. Jayaram, for the appellants (in C.A
No. 2354 of 1969 etc.)
K. Jayaram, for the appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2368 of 1969
etc.)
A. R. Ramanathan and K. Jayaram, for respondent No. 1 (in
C.A. No. 2333 of 1969) and respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 2323
of 1969).
G
K. K. Venr.gopa/, K. R. Nambiar and A. S. Nambiar for the
H
appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2326 of 1969 etc.)
'
A
B
c
IBRAHIM V. S.T.A. TRIBUNAL (Ray, J.)
477
V. T. Gopalan, A. T. M. Sampath and E. C. Agrmva/a for
respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 2326 of 1969).
'
K. Thirumalai,. A. T. M. Sampath and E. C. Agrawala, for
respondent No. 5 (m C.A. No. 2337 of 19a9) and respondent
No. 7 (in C.A. No. 2380 of 1969).
M. N. Rangaclwri and Madan Mohan, for responde,nt No. 1
(in C.A. No. 2344 of 1969), respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No.
2349 of 1969), respondent No. 3 (in C.A. No. 2337 of 1969)
and respondent No. 6 (in C.A. No. 2356 of 1969).
S. Balakt-ishnan a,nd N. M. Ghatate, for respondent No. 2 (in
C.A. No. 2337 of 1969).
R. Malwlingier, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 2338 of
1969) and respondent No. 3 (in C.A. No. 2356 of 1969).
S. Slwukat Hussain, for respondent No. 6 (in C.A. No. 2486
D
of 1969).
E
F
G
H
N. G. Krishna Iyengar, P. N. Tiwari, !. B. Dadachanji, 0. C.
Mathur and
Ravin~er Narain, for respondent No. 2 (in C.As.
Nos. 2453 and 2358 of 1969).
The Judgmen; of the Court was delivered by
RaJ, J.
These appeals by certificate turn primarily on the
interpretation of section 4 7 ( 3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
(hereinafter called the Act) and
raise two
questions.
First,
whether the Regional Transport Atlthority in limiting the number
of stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified
route in the region is required to hear persons or the said Authority can limit the number of stage carriages for which permits may
be granted by an administrative order under section 47(3) of
the Act.
The second question is whether in the facts and circumstances of these appeals there was in each case a valid order
under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act limiting the numbet of stage
carriages for which permits might be granted.
Chapter IV of the Act deals with control of transport vehicles.
Chapter IV consists of sections 42 to 68.
Section 42
sp~aks of permits for use of transport vehicles.
Section 44 contemplates the Transport Authorities which are the State Transport
Authorities
or
the
Regional
Transport
Authorities.
A
State Transport Authority coordinates and regulates the activities
and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities of the State
and performs the duties of a Regional Transport Authority
where there is no such Authority and settles all
disputes and
478
Sl'PREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] l S.C.ll.
decides all matters on which difference of opinion arise between
the Regional Transport Authorities. Section 45
of the
Act
mentions the Authority to whom application for permit shall be
made.
Section 46 of the Act gives the particulars which
an
application for stage carriage permit shall contain.
Section 47
of the Act deals with procedure of a Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permits.
Section 48 confers power on the Regional Transport Authority to
grant stage carriage permits.
Section 57 relates to the procedure in applying for and granting permits.
Section 63 deals
with validation of pennits for use outside the region in which it
is granted.
We have referred mainly to the sections which are
important for purposes of determination of the questions involved
in these appeals.
We shall first deal with the question as to whether a Regional
Transport Authority in limiting the number of stage
carriages
for which pem1it~ may be granted as contemplated in section
47(3) of the Act is required to hear persons or it can determine
the limit by an administrative order without hearing persons.
In considering the question whether the Regional Transport
Authority in limiting the number of stage carriage permits for
which permits may be granted acts in a quasi-judicial or in an
administrative ma,nner, a distinction must be noticed between the
juiisdiction and functions of a Regional Transport Authority in
relation to grant of stage carriage permits on the one hand and
limiting the number of stage carriage permits on the other. . A
Regional Transport Authority while acting under section 4 7 ( 3)
of the Act exercises authority and jurisdiction which is entirely
different from the jurisdiction and authority of a Regional Transport Authority while considering applications for granting stage
carriage permits.
It ha5 been decided by this Court in Abdul
Mateen v. Ram Kai/ash Pandey & Ors. (1) and the later decisions
in MI s. /aya Ram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam & Ors. (2),
Ba/uram v. The State Transport Appellate Authority Madhya Pradesh & Ors.(") and R. Ob/iswami Naidu v. The Addi. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras & Ors.(') that the Regional
Transport Authority has to fix the limit of number of stage carriage
permits under section 47 (3) of the Act prior to the grant of stage
carriage permits.
The difference between jurisdiction of the Regional Tnmsport Authority while limiting the number of stage
carriage
permits and its jurisdiction in relation to grant of permits is
recognised in section 57 of the
Act.
Section 57
deals with
(I) [1963] 3S.C.R. 523, (2) Civil App<al No. 95 of 1965 dccid.,d on 27-J0-1967.
(3) Civil Appeal No. 727 of 1965 decided on 22-3-1968.
(4) [1969] IS.C.R. 730.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JBRAHIM v'. s.T.A. TRIBUNAL (Ray, J.)
479
A
procedure in applying for and g1anting permits.
A Regional
Transport Authority is required to dispose of applications for
grant of permits at a public hearing at which the applicant and
the persons making representations in connection with the
application are heard.
The Regional Transport Authority is
further required to give reasons in writing for refusal to grant
B
permits to an applicant.
The right of persons to make representations in connection with the application for the grant of
permit arises by reason of section 57 ( 3) of the Act which provides for the publication of an application for a stage carriage
permit together with a notice of the date before which repres.::ntations in connection therewith should be
made
to
the
c
Regional Transport Authority.
D
F
G
H
This procedure of hearing applications and representations in
connection therewith is not applicable when the Regional Transport Authority limits
the
number of stage carriages for
which permits may be granted. Sections 47, 48 and 57 of the
Act deal mainly with jurisdiction, power and procedure of the
Regional Transport Authority in relation to consideration of
application for and grant of permits.
Section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act
is the only provision which is applicable to the jurisdiction,
power and procedure of the Regional Transport Authority while
limiting the number of stage carriages for which permits may be
granted. In section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act it is said that a Regional
Transport Authority may having regard to the matters mentioned
in sub-section (1) limit the number of stage carriages generally
or of any ~pecified type for which stage carriage permits may be
granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified
route within the region.
Sub-section (1) of section 4 7 of the Act states that a
Regional Transport Authority shall in considering an application
for stage carriage permit have regard to matters enumerated in
clauses (a) to (f) th.ereof and shall also take into consideration
any representations made by persons already providing· transport
facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area,
or by any association representing l)Crsons interested in the pro-.
vision. of road transport facilities ot by any local authority or
police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies
In other words, section 4 7 (1) of the Act
enjoi:ns that a Regional Transport Authority while considering
applications for stage carriage permits shall. have regard to the
matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) thereof and shall also
take into consideration any representations as mentioned in the
sa;d sub-section.
T
Section 47(3) of 1the Act, on the other hand, speaks only of
the matters mentioned in sub-sei;tion ( 1) which a Regional
I
480
SUPREME COURT REPORT~
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
Transport Authority may have regard to
while
limiting
the
number of stage carriages.
The total. absence in section 47 (3)
of the Act of any reference to representations mentioned in
section 4 7 ( 1) of the Act indicates that a Regio11!!1 Transport
Authority under section 47 (3) of the Act is not required to
take into consideration any representation of the nature mentioned in section 47(1) of the Act.
Representations mentioned in
section 4 7 ( 1) of the Act are referable to representations contemplated in section 57 (3) of the Act.
These representations
are those made by 'operators to the Regional Transport Authority
after the publication of an application for a stage carriage permit.
In view of the provisions of the Act and, in particular, section 48
of the Act which enacts that a Regional Transport Authority
subject to the provisions of section 4 7 may grant a stage carriage
permit, it is manifest that repres.~ntations contemplated in
sections 4 7 ( 1) and 57 ( 3) of the Act are representations subsequent
to the application for grant of permit,
and,
therefore,
these
representations do not at all enter the field of determination of
number of stage carriages under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act.
Representations mentioned in section 4 7 (1) of the Act relate
to representations by and between the competitors and contenders
for grant of a permit.
These individual representations raise
rival contentions between operators.
When the Regional Transport Authority acts under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act it does not
deal with any dispute between operators.
The Regional Transport Authority is required to arrive at its decision under section
47(3) of the Act having regard to matters mentioned in
section 4 7 ( 1 ) of the Act independent of any representation by
operators or any hearing.
The deliberation as well as the decision of the Regional Transport Authority under section 47 (3)
of the Act is confined to its own administrative policy and order.
The Regional Transport Authority in limiting the number of
stage carriage permits under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act may
address itself to the matters enumerated in sub-section ( 1) of
section 4 7 of the Act and the said Authority is not required to
hear operators at the time of the consideration of the matter of
determining the limit of number of permits.
Counsel for the respondent relied on section 64 of the Act
which co!1ferred a right of appeal on a person aggrieved by any
order which may be prescribed as mentioned in clause (i)
thereof and the rules framed under section 68 of the Act by
the Madras Government by General Order No. 1852 dated
28 May, 1965 and in particular rule 147(2)(i) which made an
order passed under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act appealable.
It
was said by cou?sel for the appellant that the right of appeal by
any person aggneved by any order would indicate that a person
A
B
c
E
F
G
H
B
c
IBRAHIM v. s.'r.A. TUBUNAL (Ray, /.)
481
had a right of being heard.
Emphasis was placed on the ,word
'aggrieved' to show that one's grievance arose because one had
been denied relief in relation to one's representation. Pfior to
the introduction of the new Rules conferring right of appeal in
respect of an order made under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act one
could apply to the State Transpon Authority under section 64A
of the Act for revision of an order in which appeal lay.· Now
that there is a provision of appeal the position is not altered.
Neither the right of appeal nor the right to apply for revision is
itself decisive of the true function of the Regional Transport
Authority as to whether the said Authority has to grant hearing
to persons at the time of fixing the limit of number of stage
carriage permits.
We have already referred to
the
elaborate
procedure of publication of applications for grant of permits,
representations by persons in connection therewith, a public hearing at the time of consideration of applications and representations,
and written reasons being given by the Re]ional Transport
Authority for refusing the permit.
The
Regiona~ Transport
D
Authority on the other hand while acting under section 4 7 ( 3)
deal with individual or competing rights of operators but is
required to arrive objectively at its own conclusion independent
of any application or representation by operators.
'
E
F
We are of opinion that the Regional Transport Authority is not
obliged to hear operators. while exercising jurisdiction under section 47 (3) of the Act in fixing the limit of number of stage carriage·
permits. It is also to be noticed that the limit of number Of stage
carriage permits fixed by the Regional Transport Authority under
section 4 7 ( 3) of the Ai:t cannot be modified by the Regional
Transport Authority when the said Authority exercises the se_parate
power of gra,nting permits under section 48 of the Act or even by
the State Appellate Transport Authority dealing with appeals
against the grant of permits.
This proposition was laid down in
the case of Abdul Mateen( 1). This view fortifies the difference
in the functions and jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority under section 47(3) of the Act on the one hand and section 48
of the Act on the other.
.
Another question arose in two appeals Nos. 24 78 of 1969 anu
G
2328 of 1969 as to whether in the case of Inter-State stage car·
riage permits and inter-regional stage carriage permits an order
under section 47(3) of the A'-t is C011templated prior to the grant
of permits.
Two sections are import1¥1.t in this behalf. They are
sections 45 and 63 of the Act. Section 45 of the Act enacts that
an application for permit shall be made to the Regional.-Transport
H
Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle
or vehicles. If a vehicle is used in two or more regions within the
(I) (1963] 3 S.C.R. 523.
£l Sup.Cl./70-2
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] l S.C.R.
same State then the application for permit shall be made to the
Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major
portion of the route or area lies and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the region is approximately equal,
the application is made to the Regional Transport Authority of the
region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle. Then again if
it is intended to use the vehicle in two or more regions lying in
different States the application shall be made to the Regional
Transport Autilority o_! the region in which the applicant resides
or has his principal place of business. It, therefore, follows that in
the case of inter-State permits application has to be made to the
Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant
resides or has his principal place of business.
In the case of inter-State permits section 63A of the Act refers
to Inter-State Transport ~ommission constituted by the Central
Government.
Section 63A(2) of the Act in clauses (a), (c) and
(d) thereof refer to the performance by the Commission of inter
alia the regulation of the operation of transport vehicles in an interState region, issuing of directions to the State Transport Authority
or the Regional Transport Authority interested regarding grant,
revocation and suspension of permjts and of counter-signatures of
permits for the operation of transport vehicles in respect of any
route or area common to two or more States. Section 64C of
the Act confers power on the Central Government to make rules
inter alia for procedure to be followed in considering applicatipns
for a permit or for counter-signature of permit, as also appeals
against a decision of the Commission. We were not shown any relevant rule with regard to inter-State permits nor were we shown
as to whether any inter-State Commission had issued directions to
the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority
regarding grant, revocation and suspension of permits common to
two or more States.
Therefore, the only section which is relevant for determination
of the question as to whether an order under section 47(3) of the
Act is contemplated for inter-State permit is section 63 of the Act.
Section 63( 1) of the Act states that a permit granted in any one
State shall not be valid in another State unless countersigned by
the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the
Regional Transport Authority concerned. Section 63 (3) of the
Act states that the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act relating to
grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the
grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits.
The proviso to section 63(3) of the Act is that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid-aown in section 57 of the Act
, for the grant of countersignatures of permits where permits granted
in'.-any one State are required to be countersigned by the State
Transport Authority of another State or by the Regional Transport
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
IBRAHIM V. S1T,A. TRIBUNAL (Ray, J.)
-./.
.. -_
483
.
Authority concerned as a result of an agreement arrived at between
the States.. These provisions establish that in the case of an interstate permit an applicati()n has to be made to the Regional Transport Au\hority of a State as
1 mentioned in section 45 of the Act
and the permit is to be countersigned by the State Transport
Authority of the other St?te or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as mentioned in section 63 of the Act. Chapter IV
consists of section 42 to 68. Section 57 deals with procedure for
application and giant of permits. That section will therefore,
apply for the grant of inter-State permits. The effect of the provi~o
to section 63(3) is that in the case of inter-State permits where an
.agreement has been arrived at between the States the provisions of
section 5 7 of the Act n~ed not be followed for the grant of countersignatures of permits. In other cases the procedure in section 57
of the Act will apply in regard to grant, revocation and suspension
of permits and to countersignatures of permits as well. Section 48
of the Act which relates t<> power.to grant of stage carriage permits
will also apply to inter-State permits. The provisions contained in
sub-section (!) generally and sub-section (2) of section 47 will
apply to the Regional Transport Authority a~ the time of consideration of the. application for inter-State stage carriage permit. Section
47(3) of the Act will not in our opinion apply to inter-State permits
because that provision relates to a Regional Transport Authority
limiting the numberof stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted in th~ regiol) or in any specified ·area or on
any specified route within . the region.
In othet words, sectio!l
47(3) of the Act is confined in its operation in or within the region.
The provisions of sectio_n 4 7(3) of the Act do not apply to interstate permits because an inter-State permit cannot be effective unless it is countersigned by the Authority of the other State. The
suggestion that in regard to inter-State permits a limit has to be
fixed in regard to number of stage carriages for inter-State routes
will have the effect of adding words to the provisions in section
47(3) of the Act. That will not be the proper way of giving effect
to section 47(3) of the Act. It will be misreading section 47(:3)
of the Act if it will be applied to inter-State permits. The combined effect of section 63, 63A, 63B and 63C is that the inter-State
Commi>sion will deal with inter-State permits. The Central
Government under section 63C of the Act is authorised to make
rules in regard to the procedure to be followed in considering an
application for grant and countersignature of permits. fo the
absence of specific rules, the best way of harmonising the powers
and functions is to allow these inter-State authorities to exercise
their power within their respe<:tive :spheres in regard to grant and
countersignature of permits by agreement and accord.
·
In the case of inter-regional permits an application under section 45 of the Act has to be made to the Regional Transport
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed
route or area lies and in case the portion of the proposed route or
area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional
Transport Authority ,of the region in which it is proposed to keep
the vehicle or vehicles. Then under section 63 of the Act a permit
granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region shall
not be valid in any other region unless the permit is countersigned
by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. Secuon
63 (3) of the Act makes the provisions of Chapter IV applicable
relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits and to
the grant, revocation a.nd suspension of countersignature of. permits. The result is ,that sections 47 to 68 which occur in Chapter
IV are therefore attracted in case of inter-regional permits. In view
1Jf the fact that section 47(3) of the Act is restricted in its field in
or within the region, ti}~ provisions in terms do not become applicable to inter-regional permits. Section 68 of the Act contemplates
rules and conditions subject to which and the extent to which, a
permit shall be valid in another region within the State without
countersignature. We have not been shown any rules to that efkct.
The reasons which do not make section 47(3) applicable to interState permit apply proprio vigore to inter-regional permits.
As in the case of inter-State permits the harmonious reading of
the sections will be to make sections 42 to 68 of the Act applkable
wherever it is possible to do so. The fixing of limit of number of
stage carriage permits in or within the region is entrusted to the
Regional Transport Authority 'because of the particular local matters contemplated in section 47(1) of the Act, namely, adequacy or
other transport services between the places to be served, benefit to
a particular locality to be afforded by the service, conditions of the
roads included in the proposed route or area. These considerations
in the case of intel·-State permits a> also in the case of inter regional permits cannot. be said to be entrusted to the Regional
Transport Authority to which the application is made because
both in the case of inter State permits and inter-regional permits
considerations in different States and in different regi<Jns will becom<" relevant and are not embraced within the scope and intent
of su Jon 47(3) of the Act. We are therefore of opinion that
secti0r. 47(3) of the Act will not apply either to grant or to
countersignature of permits both in the case of inter-State and
inter-regional permits.
The relevant authorities in two States or
two regions will ensure agreement and act in concert as the case
may be. The number of services in the region can of course be
fixed by the Regional Transport Authority but they will be for
the region only. The number of services for inter
r~gional or
mter State routes beyond the frontier of the region will haye to
toe determined by agreement.
\
c
D
E
H!
B
c
D
E
IBRAHIM V, S.T.A. TRIBUNAL (Ray, J,)
485
The next question which 'falls for determination is the point of
time when a Regional Transport Authority will under section 47
( 3) of the Act fix the limit of number of stage carriage permits.
This Court in Abdul Mateen's(',) case said that the general Order
. by the Regional Transport Authority under section 47 (3) of the
Act in regard to the limit of number of stage carriage permits can
be modified only by the ~egional Transport
Al!~prity when
exercising the jurisdiction under section 4 7. ( 3) of the Act. The
Regional Transport Authority while acting under section 48 of the
Act in regard to the gra11t of permits _l_ias no jurisdiction and
authority to modify any order passed by the Regio!lal Transport
Authority under section 47(3> of thJl Act. In oilier words, the
limit fixed by the Regional Transport Authority under section 47
( 3) of the Act cannot be altered by the Regional Transport
Authority at the time of grant of permi\s. It is, therefore, established that the determination of limit' 'of number of permits is
to be made before the &rant of permits. That is why section 48 .
of the Act is prefaced with the words "subject to the provisions of
section 47 of the Act" meaning tliereby that the jurisdiction of
the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits is subjeet to
the determination of the limit of number of penLits under sec·
tion 4 7 ( 3) of the Act. This Court stated the leg.•1 position in
Mis. Jaya Ram Motor Service's case(2 ) and said "'tis theretore
clear that the authority has first to fix the limit.and after having
done so consider the application or the repr~ntations in connection therewith in accordance ·with the. procedure liii'd dowri in
section 57 of the Act". Again in the case of R. Ob/iswami
Naidu( 8) this Court considered the submission in that case as to
whether the Regional Transport Authority could decide the numbe.r of permits while considering applications for permits. This
Court did not accept the submission because such a view would
allow an operator who happened to apply first to be in a com- ·
mnnding position with the result that the Regional Transport
Authority would have no opportunity to choose between com·
peting operators and public interest might suffer. In the same
case it is again said that the determination of the number of stage /
carriages for which stage carriage penfilis may be granted for the
route is to be done first and thereafter applications for permits are
to be entertained.
The four decisions of this Court to which we have referred
eitablish two propositions.
First, that the Regional . Tr11.nsport
Authority should fix the limit· of numbeflif stage carriage permits
Wider section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act and after having -done so the
· H . Regional Transport Authority 'will. consider the ~ation fo1
·OJ [1963] 3 S.C.R. 523. (2} Civil Appeal No. 95of1965 i!tcldod on 27-lo.1961
clt 1: 9·~11 s.c.R. 130,
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
gk"ant and repr~entations in connection therewith in accordance
V1itlL the procedure laid down in section 57 of the Act Secondly,
when a new route is opened for the first time and an advertisement
1s issued calling for applications for such a new route specifying
lhe number of vacancies for it, it would be reasonable to hold
that the number of velllcles is specified as the limit decided upon
by the Regional Transport Authority.
ln the present appeals,
the Regional '.frarisport. Authority in many cases fixed the limit
of number of st_Me carriage pen:!lits on the same day on which
it heard the applications for the grant of permits and representations in ~onnect.ion therewith.
The Regional Transport Autho-
'rity fixed the limit of number of stage carriage permits at a sitting.
separate from and prior to the sitting at which
the
Regioncit
Transport Authority heard the applications ior grant of permits
and representations in connection t~er_ewith.
The present appeals are 3J.1 goverped by the Madras Motor
Vehicles Rules.
The Act unaer sect~on 64 confers a right of
appeal against an order under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act.
'.fhe
Madras Motor Vehicles Rules framed under section 68 of the
Act confer a right of appeal against an order under section 47 ( 3)
t>f the Act. Section 64(i) of the Act confers a right of appeal
against an order as may be prescribed by the Rules. That is how
the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules have prescribed appeals against
several orders which are otherwise not mentioned as appealable
orders under section 64 of the Act. The result is that according
to the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules there is a separate right of
appeal against an order under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act.
In the present appeals none of the parties preferred any appeal
to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against
any order
under section 47(3) of the Act. The partiesyreferred appeals
only against refusal to grant permit.
In tliose appeals against
refusal to grant p~rmit though no specific ground was taken as
to absence of a valid order under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal in· some cases allowed the
parties to advance a contention in that behalf and in other case>
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal suo motu went into· the
question as to whether there was a valid order under -section 4 7 ( 3)
of the Act.
The julisdiction of the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal in appeals under section 64 of the Act against refusal to
grant permit is confined cinly to that aspect.
The jurisdiction of
the Regional Transport Authority in the matter of orders under
section 47 (3) of the Act is entirely separate from jurisdiction of
the Regional Transport Authority in the matter of grant and
refusal of permit under sections 48 and 57 of tire Act. The distinction between the two juris~ctions is so well demarcated that
(tJ [19631 3 s.c.R. s23.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
IBRAHIM v. S.T.A. TRIBUNAL (Ray, J.)
487
this Court in A_bdul Mateen's case(') said that neither the
Regional Transport Authority at the time of grant of permit nor
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in hearing appe'!ls against
refusal to grant permit could modify oi:ders under section 4 7'( 3)
of the Act.
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal however proceeded in
the present appeals on the basis that the absence of a valid ord'er
under section 47(3) of the Act would rob the RegionaiTransport
Authority of its jurisdiction to grant permit.
In the present
appeals, it became a question of fact as to whether there was in
each case an order under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act. The State
I ransport Appellate Tribunal in some cases werit into the- records
and held that there was no order in writing under section 4 7 ( 3) of
the Act as to the limit of number of stage carriage permits. The
records however contain evidence that the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority on the basis of statistics advised the
Regional Transport Authority to open new routes or to increase
the number of permits and the Regional Transport Authority
thereafter proceeded on that basis. In other cases the Regional
Transport Authority of one State agreed with the ,Regional Transport Authority of another State for new or additional permits and
thereafter applications were considered.
An order under section 4 7 ( 3) of the Act is_ not a matter of mere form ~t of substance.
When it became a question of fact as to whether theRegional Transport Authority fixed the limit of number of permits before the grant of permits, the State Transport Appellatl'
Tribunal fell into the error of over-looking the substance of the
matter. We are of opiniOn that if from the records of the Regional Transport Authority it could be spelt out that the Regional
Transport Authority fixed the limit of number of permits for stage
'arriages before the Regional Transport Authority considered the
applications and representations for grant of p-ermit, t_he Regional
Transport Authority then complied with the provisions of the
statute. In the facts and circumstance.~ of the present appeals all
operators competed for the grarit of permits aiid thereafter preferred appeals only against the grant or refusal of permits.
We shall now deal with the appeals individually.
·
Civil Appeal No.