9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (4) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 47(3) of the Act limiting the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted. 2. Chapter IV of the Act deals with control of transport vehicles. Chapter IV consists of Sections 42 to 68. Section 42 speaks 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als with procedure in applying for and granting 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 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 representations in connection therewith should be made to the Regional Transport Authority. 5. 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 47(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of Section 47 may grant a stage carriage permit, it is manifest that representations contemplated in Sections 47(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 47(3) of the Act. Representations mentioned in Section 47(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 47(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 47 (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 unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge permits. It is also to be noticed that the limit of number of stage carriage permits fixed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47(3) of the Act cannot be modified by the Regional Transport Authority when the said Authority exercises the separate power of granting 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 [1963]3SCR523 . 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. 10. Another question arose in two appeals Nos. 2478 of 1969 and 2328 of 1969 as to whether in the case of Inter-State stage carriage permits and inter-regional stage carriage permits an order under Section 47(3) of the Act is contemplated prior to the grant of permits. Two sections are important 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 Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alid 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 TV 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 down 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 Authority concerned as a result of an agreement arrived at between the States. These provisions establish that in the case of an inter-State permit an application has to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of a State as mentioned in Section 45 of the Act and the permit is to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of the other State 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 pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and countersignature of permits by agreement and accord. 13. In the case of inter-regional permits an application under Section 45 of the Act has to be made to the Regional Transport 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. Section 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 and 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 of the fact that Section 47(3) of the Act is restricted in its field in or within the region, the provisions in terms do not become applicable to inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only by the Regional Transport Authority when exercising the jurisdiction under Section 47(3) of the Act. The Regional Transport Authority while acting under Section 48 of the Act in regard to the grant of permits has no jurisdiction and authority to modify any order passed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47(3) of the Act. In other 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 permits. It is, therefore, established that the determination of limit of number of permits is to be made before the grant 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 thereby that the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits is subject to the determination of the limit of number of permits under Section 47(3) of the Act. This Court stated the legal position in M/s. Jay a Ram Motor Service's case Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1965 decided on 27-10-1967 and said it is therefore clear that the authority has first to fix the limit and after having done so consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 68 of the Act confer a right of appeal against an order under Section 47(3) of 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 47(3) of the Act. 18. 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 parties preferred appeals only against refusal to grant permit. In those appeals against refusal to grant permit though no specific ground was taken as to absence of a valid order under Section 47(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 cases the State Transport Appellate Tribunal suo motu went into the question as to whether there was a valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. The jurisdiction of the State Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applications and representations for grant of permit, the Regional Transport Authority then complied with the provisions of the statute. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeals all operators competed for the grant of permits and thereafter preferred appeals only against the grant or refusal of permits. 20. We shall now deal with the appeals individually. Civil Appeal No. 2322 to 1969. 21. In this appeal the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the grant of permit on the ground that there was no valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. The High Court also took the same view. In the present case there was proposal based on statistics to show the need for an additional bus. The Regional Transport Authority itself invited applications under Section 57(2) of the Act for the grant of an additional permit on the route. It is significant that there was no application by any operator for the grant of an additional permit but that the Regional Transport Authority itself under Section 57(2) of the Act invited applications for the grant of an additional permit and appointed dates for reception of applications in that behalf. This invitation of applications ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was as to whether there was a need for an additional bus. The other contention was that the permit should not have been granted to the appellant on his application which was made suo motu. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that there was a need for a bus and that the Regional Transport Authority after receipt of the appellant's applications had notified the same and asked for representations in connection therewith. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that there was in fact a determination for the grant of an additional bus and upheld the grant. In the facts and circumstances of the case it would be proper to hold that there was a valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. The Regional Transport Authority decided upon the introduction of a new bus on the route and then dealt with the grant. The High Court was in error in holding that there was no valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. The appeal is therefore allowed. Civil Appeal No. 2327 of 1969 25. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that there was no valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. The High Court upheld that view. This was opening of a new route. The Regional Transport A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the grant of stage carriage permit. The combination of circumstances, namely, the approval by the Regional Transport Authority of the recommendation of the Secretary for the introduction of an additional bus on the existing route and the consequent notification under Section 57(2) of the Act asking for applications for grant of an additional permit on the said route in each case in our opinion establishes a valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act in each case. 28. In Civil Appeal No. 2335 of 1969 there was a proposal for the opening of a new town service route. Applications under Section 57(2) of the Act were invited for the new town route No. 3. Furthermore, the minutes of the Regional Transport Authority indicate that the Regional Transport Authority limited the number of stage carriage permits to one for the present before the said Authority proceeded to consider the applications for grant of permit. The invitation of applications under Section 57(2) of the Act for a permit on a new route in the context of facts and circumstances of the case establishes that there was a valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. 29. In Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 1969 the minutes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 33. These appeals are allowed and the cases are remitted to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with on merits. Civil Appeals No. 2338--2342, 2353--2362 2368 of 1969 34. In these appeals the State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that there was no valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. The High Court was also of the same view. Civil Appeals No. 2338, 2340, 2341, 2342, 2355, 2359 to 2362 of 1969 relate to a bus on a new route in each case. The other appeals relate to additional bus on an existing route in each case. 35. In Civil Appeals No. 2338, 2340, 2341 and 2342 of 1969 the Regional Transport Authority issued notifications under Section 57(2) of the Act inviting applications for grant of stage carriage permit on the routes. Thereafter notifications were issued under Section 57(3) of the Act. These appeals relate to a new route in each case. Civil Appeals No. 2355, 2359--2362 of 1969 also relate to a bus on a new route in each case. In these appeals new routes were opened by the Regional Transport Authority after examining public representations and notifications under Section 57(2) of the Act were also issued. The notifications under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal to be dealt with on merits. Civil Appeals No. 2409, 2452, 2453--2457 of 1969 39. In Civil Appeals No. 2409 and 2456 of 1969 a new route was opened in each case with permits for two buses. There was first intensive traffic survey under the authority of the Regional Transport Officer. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority issued notifications under Section 57(2) of the Act inviting applications for the grant of two stage carriage permits to run on each route forming the subject matters of these appeals. These notifications inviting applications for two permits on new routes in each case, in our opinion, show that there has been compliance with Section 47(3) of the Act and in the facts and circumstances of the case there was a valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act in each case. 40. In Civil Appeal No. 2452 of 1969 there was a traffic survey by the Regional Transport Officer who put up a note to the Regional Transport Authority and suggested introduction of four additional buses. The Regional Transport Authority agreed and directed that the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot be obtained because a portion of the route lay within the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because it could not be predicated that the Regional Transport Authority had considered all the matters mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 47(1) of the Act. It is not possible to find reference to consideration of the matters in the order. Suffice it to say that the two Regional Transport Authorities concurred in the proposal of an additional permit and thereafter applications were invited under Section 57(2) of the Act. We are of opinion that there was a valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. 43. In Civil Appeal No. 2455 of 1969 the appellant made an application to the Regional Transport Authority, Salem in September, 1963 for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Kaveripatnam to Tirupethur. That application was treated as a proposal under Section 47(1) of the Act and representations were invited. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority rejected the proposal. An appeal was made to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was allowed. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that there was need for the grant of a stage carriage permit and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter an application was made to the High Court a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry it is to find out whether the two States have concurred in the proposal for a new route or an additional bus on the route as the case may be. This appeal relates to a new inter-State route. The two State authorities agreed and thereafter notification under Section 57(2) of the Act was made inviting applications for the grant of permit on the new route. We are of opinion that there was a valid order for the grant of permit. 47. In Civil Appeal No. 2479 of 1969 the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot granted a permit to the appellant on the route Pondicherry to Mylam. The Transport Commissioner. Madras Region, wrote to the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry that the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot had approved the proposal for opening of a hew route from Pondicherry to Mylam via Thiruchitrabalam and asked for concurrence in the proposal in pursuance of the principles of agreement for sharing the permits by both the States. The State Transport Authority, Pondicherry granted concurrence. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot invited applications under Section 57(2) of the Act. 48. Apart from the consideration that Section 47(3) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in Section 47(1) of the Act. Civil Appeal No. 2532 of 1969 relates to a new route. There was a proposal of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to open the new route. The Regional Transport Authority approved the proposal and thereafter invited applications under Section 57(2) of the Act. There was a valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of each case. These appeals are therefore allowed and the cases are remitted to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with on merits. Civil Appeals No. 2575, 2576 and 2584 of 1969. 52. Civil Appeal No. 2575 of 1969 relates to a stage carriage permit on a new route. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that there was no valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. The High Court upheld that view. The Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot invited applications for the stage carriage permit on the route Perampattu to Perampattu via Vishamangalam, Tiruppathur, Vengalapuram and Kurisalpattu, covering a distance of 19 miles 2 furlongs. The route was opened because of representations by the public. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority examined the question and put up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lates to an additional bus on the existing route. The High Court upheld the view of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that there was no valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority made traffic survey, and thereafter submitted a proposal for the introduction of an additional bus on the route. The Regional Transport Authority approved the proposal and published notifications under Section 57(2) of the Act inviting applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit. We are of opinion that there was a valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. The appeal is therefore allowed and the case is remitted to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with on merits. Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1970 58. This appeal relates to an additional bus on the existing route. The position is similar to that of Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1970 and for the same reasons we are of opinion that there was a valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. The appeal is therefore allowed and the matter is remitted to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with on merits. 59. In these appeals, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was of the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als indicates that the Regional Transport Authority had in each case arrived at a decision under Section 47(3) of the Act as to the limit of number of permits as mentioned in the notification. 61. Before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as well as in the High Court there was some doubt as to the point of time when an order under Section 47(3) of the Act would have to be made, namely, whether it would be before applications are made for grant of permit or whether it could be valid if it were made before grant of a permit. Section 57(2) of the Act in relation to stage carriage permits specifies that applications shall be made for the grant of a permit not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect. In such a case it will not be possible for the Regional Transport Authority to fix the limit of number of permits before applications are made. On the other hand, where the Regional Transport Authority appoints dates for the receipt of applications as contemplated in Section 57(2) of the Act it may be justifiable to hold that the Regional Transport Authority before publishing the dates for the receipt of such application for grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ixed at the time of consideration of applications because thereby public interest might not gain the dominant consideration and on the contrary the decision of the Regional Transport Authority might be influenced by personal consideration of or predilection for the applicants. There should not be any room for elasticity of the number of permits at the time of consideration of applications for the grant. It is in the scheme of the Act that limit should be fixed before the grant of permit and proper effect can be given to these provisions by deciding upon the limit of number of permits before applications for grant of permits are invited under Section 57(2) of the Act and in other cases before applications for grant of permits are published under Section 57(3) of the Act to enable persons to make representations. The central idea is that applicants and those who will make representations should all know the limit of number of permits to be granted in order to ensure free and fair competition. 64. In some of the present appeals, the High Court held that where order under Section 47(3) of the Act was made at a sitting on the same day on which the Regional Transport Authority conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e limit fixed, and procedure laid down in Section 57(3) of the Act need not then be followed. On the other hand, if the Regional Transport Authority on receipt of applications would decide upon the limit of permits and the grant thereof would be within the limit prescribed then the procedure laid down in Section 57(3) of the Act would be followed. Though this scheme of the statute which is outlined here has not been followed in all the appeals in the present case, we have found that the Regional Transport Authority in some cases fixed the limit of number of permits 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 that time. The contention as to validity of order under Section 47(3) of the Act was raised subsequently at the time of hearing of appeal against refusal or permit. We have found that there was notification under Section 57(2) of the Act and we have held in the facts and circumstances of the case that there was a valid order under Section 47(3) of the Act. In few cases it was said that the order of fixing the limit was done at the same sitting along with the hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
