Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
ABDUL REHMAN AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/03/1978
BENCH:
SINGH, JASWANT
BENCH:
SINGH, JASWANT
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
CITATION:
1978 AIR 949 1978 SCR (2) 453
1978 SCC (2) 674
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226-Jurisdiction of the
High Court interfere under Art. 226 with the orders of the
transport authorities in the grant of stage carriage permits
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Motor vehicles Act, 1939, Section 47-Scope of.
HEADNOTE:
While considering the applications including those of the
appellants for grant of additional stage carriage permit on-
the Meerut-Mawana Miranpur route which was increased from 11
of 15 in 1959, the Regional Transport Authority, purporting
to exercise its authority of grant of the permits under
section 48 read with section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939, modified the limit, of number of stage carriage
permits by increasing it to 20 against the settled law or
the subject, and disallowed the applications of the
appellants as well as the representations of Fakir Chand
Gupta and others. Against this order Fakir Chand Gupta, and
a few others including Harish Chandra Misra preferred an
appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which,
following the decision of this Court in [1963] 3 SCR 523, by
its order dated November 26,1963 set aside the order of the
Regional Transport Authority and remanded and matter to the
latter for filling up the six vacancies. Then other appeals
preferred by others, later, were dismissed as infructuous by
the Tribunal vide its order dated October 17, 1966 in view
of the order already passed by it on November 29, 1963 in
the appeal of Fakir Chand Gupta and others. At its meetings
held on August 28-29, 1964, the Regional Transport Authority
considered the applications of 17 persons whose cases had
been remanded and refused to consider the appellants’ on the
ground that they had not appealed against the order
rejecting their applications in 1962. The appellants and
Harish Chandra Misra, thereupon preferred four separate
appeals under section 64A of the Motor vehicles Act to the
State Transport Tribunal. During the pendency of the
appeals, Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route became an inter-
regional (amalgamated) route by its extension upto Bijnor.
Thereupon, all the four appellants applied to the Tribunal
for amendments of their original applications and for grant
of permits for the said amalgamated route. According to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
their prayer, the Tribunal allowed their appeals and
directed the Regional Transport Authority that they be
allotted one regular stage carriage permits each for the
amalgamated route. Rahim-Ud-Din, an existing operator on
the Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route filed a petition before the
High Court for issuance of a Writ quashing the order
granting permits in favour of the appellants on the Harish
Chandra Misra. The petition was partly allowed by a single
Judge of High Court quashing the order granting the permits
of the appellants on the ground that since they had omitted
to, appeal against the order of the Regional Transport
Authority rejecting their aplications for the grant of
permits in 1962 their case had come to an end and they could
not be granted any permits. The Letters Patent Appeal
preferred by the appellants failed.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court
HELD : 1. The High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution
should be reluctant to interfere or disturb the decision of
specially constituted authorities or tribunals under the Act
especially when the legislature has entrusted the task of
granting or renewing the stage carriage permits to the
aforesaid authorities or tribunals which are expected to be
fully conversant with the procedure and practice and the
relevant matters which should engage their attention under
the provisions contained in the Act. In dealing with
applications for writs of certiorari under Article 226 of
the Constitution. in cases of the present
454
the High Court must not exercise the jurisdiction of an
appellate court and the findings or conclusions on questions
of fact could hardly be re-examined or disturbed by it
unless the well recognised tests in that behalf were
satisfied. [458 A-D]
Kailanchand Narsinhdas Bhatia v. State Transport Appellate
Authority, and Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 695, reiterated.
Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C. Chandra Sekaran and
Ors. [1964] 5 SCR 869.
Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act emphasises the interest
of the travelling public as the dominant consideration in
the grant of permits and no order in exercises of powers
under Art. 226 or Art. 136 of the Constitution will
ordinarily be passed if the public is likely to suffer.
In the instant case : (a) the High Court should not have in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction interfered in a case of
this nature particularly when the cancellation of the
appellants’ permits was bound to cause inconvenience and
hardship to the travelling public; (b) the route in question
had assumed the character of an an amalgamated inter-
regional route in regard where to the provisions of Section
47(3) of the Act which are confined in their operation to a
region or a specified area or a specified route, within a
region were not applicable and the need for increasing the
number of permits in the interest of public was recognised
by the Regional Transport Authority itself in its resolution
No. 44(5) passed by it in its meetings held on July 7 to
July 10, 1970, which is expressly alluded to in the order
dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
as also the fact that the appellants have been operating on
the route for quite sometime and do not appear to have
indulged in any malpractice. [457 E-H]
Mohd. lbrahim etc. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Madras etc. [1971] 1 S.C.R. 474 followed.
[The court it.1 view of its decision in this appeal,
dismissed the connected special leave petition (Civil) No.
1852/76].
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1276 of
1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
27-8-1975 of the Allahabad High CouRt in Special Appeal No.
208/75.
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No. 1852 of 1976.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3-9-1975 of the Allahabad
High Court to Special Appeal No. 216/73.
S. C. Agarwala, for the appellants.
A. K. Sen (in CA No. 1276), J. P., Goyal and Ranhir Jain,
for Respondents 3-5 and Petitioner in SLP.
L. N. Sinha, D. P. Singh and R. K. Jain, for Respondent No.
3 in SLP.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J-This appeal by ’special leave is directed
against the judgment and order dated August 27, 1975 of a
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Special Appeal No. 208 of 1973 upholding the order dated
August 28, 1973 of a Single Judge of that Court whereby he
quashed the order dated May
455
5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting
regul permits in favour of the appellants for amalgamated
route known as Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur, Meerut-Bijnor via
Mawana-Meerut Mawana Khurd-Phalauda, Meerut-Masuri-Lawar-
Phalauda, Meerut-Masuri-Lawar and Khatauli-Phalauda-Mawana-
Makdoompur route.
The dispute as stated in the judgment and order under appeal
relates to. Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route, the limit of the
number of stage carriage permits whereof was raised from 11
to 15 in 1959. Out of the additional four permits which
thus became available for grant, the Regional Transport
Authority granted three to the displaced persons and invited
applications to fill up the remaining one vacancy. In
response to the invitation, the appellants also applied for
grant of the stage carriage permits for the said route.
While considering the applications and exercising its
authority of grant of the permits under section 48 read with
section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter
called ’the Act’), the Regional Transport Authority mod fied
the limit of number of the stage carriage permits and
increase it from 15 to 20 which it could not do in view of
the law settled by this Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash
Pandey (1) and Ors., M/s. Jay Rom Motor Service v. S.
Rajarathnam and Ors.(2), Baluram v. The State Transport
Appellate Authority, Madhya Pradesh & Ors.(3) and R.
Obliswami Naidu v. The Adadl. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Madras & Ors.(4) and granted the six permit to (1)
Mohd. Matin Sheikh, (2) Satwati Devi, Sardar Singh Chidda
Singh and Mahendra Singh, (3) Satyapal Khetre Pal, (4)
Ramesh Mohan Sharma, (5) Chajju Mal and (6) Hari Dass,
disallowing the applications of the appellants and some
others including Harish Chandra Mishra and rejecting the
representations made by Fakir Chan Gupta and others.
Against this order of the Regional Transport Authority,
Fakir Chand Gupta and a few others including Harish Chandra
Mishra preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated November 26, 1963
set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and
remanded the matter to the latter for filling up the six
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
vacancies after following the procedure referred to in the
decision of this Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash
Pandey (supra). where it was held :-
"Section 47(3) gives power to the Regional
Transport Authority having regard to the
matters mentioned in subs.(1) to limit the
number of stage carriages generally etc. It
would be clear therefore that when the
Regional Transport Authority proceeds in the
manner provided in s. 57 to consider an
application for a stage carriage permit and
eventually decides either to grant it or not
to grant it under s. 48 its order has to be
subject to the provisions of S. 47, including
s. 47(3) by which the Regional Transport
Authority is given the power to limit the
number of stages generally etc.
(1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 523
(2) C.A.95 of 1965 decided on 27-10-1967.
(3) C.A. 727 of 1965 decided on 22-3-1968.
(4) [1969] 3 S.C.R. 730.
456
Therefore, if the Regional Transport Authority
has limited the number of stage carriages by
exercising its power under s. 47(3), the grant
of permits by it under S. 48 has to be subject
to the limit fixed under S. 47(3). We cannot
accept the contention on behalf of the
appellant that when the Regional Transport
Authority following the procedure provided in
S. 57, comes to grant or refuse a permit it
can ignore the limit fixed under S. 47(3),
because it is also the authority making the
order under s. 48. Section 47(3) is concerned
with a general order limiting stage carriages
generally etc. on a consideration of matters
specified in S. 47(1). That general order can
be modified by the Regional Transport Autho-
rity, if it so decides, one way or the other.
But the modification of that order is not a
matter for consideration when the Regional
Transport Authority is dealing with the actual
grant of permits under S. 48 read with S. 57,
for at that stage what the Regional Transport
Authority has to do is to-choose between
various applicants who may have made
applications to it under s. 46 read with S.
57. That in our opinion is not the stage
where the general order passed under S. 47(3)
can be re-considered for the order under S. 48
is subject to the provisions of S. 47, which
includes S. 47(3) under which a general order
limiting the number of stage carriages etc.
may have been passed."
Ten other persons whose applications for grant of permits
were rejected also preferred appeals before the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal but the same were dismissed as
infructuous by the Tribunal vide its order dated October 17,
1966 in view of the order already passed by it on November
26, 1963 in the appeal of Fakir Chand Gupta and others.
Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority at its meetings
held on August 28 and 29, 1964 considered the applications
of 17 persons whose cases had been remanded to it but
refused to consider the cases of the appellants on the
ground that they had not appealed against the order
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
rejecting their applications in @1962. The Regional
Transport Authority also rejected the application of Harish
Chandra Mishra though his matter had been remanded by the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appellants and
Harish Chandra Mishra thereupon preferred four separate
appeals under section 64 of the Act to the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeals,
Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route became an inter regional
(amalgamated) route by its extension upto Bijnor.Thereupon,
the appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra applied to the
Tribunal for amendment of their original applications and
for grant of permits for the said amalgamated route.
Acceding to their prayer, the Tribunal allowed the appeals
and directed that the appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra
be allotted one regular stage carriage permit each for the
amalgamated route mentioned above. Aggrieved by this order,
Rahimuddin, an existing operator on the Meerut-Mawana-
Miranpur route filed a petition before the High Court for
issuance of a writ quashing the order granting permits in
favour of the appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra. The
said petition was
457
allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court in so far as the
appellants were concerned on the ground that ’since the
appellants had omitted to appeal against the order of the
Regional Transport Authority rejecting their applications
for grant of permits in 1962, their case had come to an end
and they could not be granted any permit. Dissatisfied with
this judgment and order, the appellants preferred a Letters
Patent Appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and order
dated August 28, 1973. It is against this judgment and
order that the appellants have come up in appeal to this
Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length. It is true that the appellants did not
appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority
rejecting- their applications in 1962 but as they were
informed of the rejection of their applications only in 1964
and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had vide its
order dated November 26, 1963 already set aside the order of
the Regional Transport Authority which had been made in
contravention of the settled law, there was in reality no
subsisting order against which the appellants could have
fruitfully appealed. And even if they bad appealed, their
appeals were bound to meet the same fate as the other ten
appeals which, as already stated, were dismissed as
infructuous. In this view of the matter, we find no force
in the prefatory submissions made by Mr. Ashok Sen that the
applications made by the appellants for grant of the permits
to the Regional Transport Authority having become non est
with their rejection in 1962, no rival claim made by the
appellants which could merit determination was left to be
considered either by the Regional Transport Authority or by
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
Coming now to the merits, we are of opinion that having
regard to the facts that with its extension, upto Bijnor,
the route in question bad assumed the character of an
amalgamated inter-regional route in regard whereto the
provisions of section 47 (3) of the. Act which, as
succinctly held by this Court in Mohd, Ibrahim etc. v. State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras etc. (1) are confined
in their operation to a region or a specified area or a
specified route within a region were pot applicable and the
need for increasing the number of permits in the interest of
public was recognised by the Regional Transport Authority
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
itself in its resolution No. 44(5) passed at its meetings
held on July 7 to July 10, 1970 which is expressly alluded
to in the aforesaid order dated May 5, 1973 of the State
Appellate Tribunal as also the fact that the appellants have
been operating on the route for quite sometime and do not
appear to have indulged in any malpractice, we think the
High Court should not have in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction interfered in a case of this nature
particularly when the cancellation of the appellants’
permits was bound to cause inconvenience and hardship to the
travelling public. After all section 47 of the Act
empbasises the interest of the’ travelling public as the
dominant consideration in the grant of permits and no order
in exercise of powers under Article 226 or Article 136 of
the Constitution will ordinarily be passed if the public is
likely to suffer. And, surely,
(1) [1971] 1 S.C.R.474.
458
in this case, after all these years when all these buses
having been plying, it will be. ritualistic to direct second
consideration of the need to increase the number of permits
for the route which is now admittedly an inter-regional
route. It is hardly necessary in this connection to
reiterate the observations made by this Court in Kishanchand
Narsingh Das Bhatia v. State Transport Appellate Authority &
Ors.(1) that the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution should be reluctant to interfere with or
disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities or
tribunals under the Act especially when the Legislature has
entrusted the task of granting or renewing the stage
carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities or tribunals
which are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure
and practice and the relevant matters which should engage
their attention under the provisions contained in the Act.
In dealing with applications, for writs of certiorari under
Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of the present
kind, it is necessary to bear in mind that the High Court
does not exercise the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court and
the findings or conclusions on questions of fact could
hardly be re-examined or disturbed by it under Article 226
of the Constitution unless the well recognised tests in that
behalf were satisfied vide : Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd.
v. C. Chandrasekaran & Ors.(2).
Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned
judgments and orders of the High Court and restore the order
dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
in so far as the appellants are concerned. In the
circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear
their own costs.
ORDER
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1852/75
JASWANT SINGH, J.-This is a petition under Article 136 of
the Constitution seeking special leave to appeal against the
judgment and order dated September 3, 1975 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 216 of 1973
upholding the judgment and order dated August-28, 1973 of K.
N. Singh, J. in writ petition No. 3310 of 1973 whereby while
dismissing the writ petition in part, he maintained the
order dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal in so far as it allowed. the appeal No. 237 of 1969
preferred by Harish Chandra Mishra against the order of the
Regional Transport Authority, Meerut passed in its meeting
held on August 28 and 29, 1964 and directed that a regular
stage carriage permit for the amalgamated route known as
Meerut-Mawana-Hastinapur-Bijnor and allied routes, be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
allowed to him.
The facts giving rise to this petition are set out in our
judgment of even dated in Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 1975 and
need not be re-iterated. In view of the settled position of
law that this Court would be reluctant to interfere with or
disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities or
tribunals under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 especially when
the Legislature has entrusted the task of granting or
renewing the stage
(1) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 605.
(2) [1964] 5 S.C.R. 869.
459
carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities or tribunals
which are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure
and practice and the relevant matters which should engage
their attention under the provisions contained in the Act
and nothing basically wrong with the order sought to be
appealed against so far as Harish Chandra Mishra is
concerned has been found by the High Court, as also the
observations made by this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim etc. v.
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras etc.(",) we do
not find any merit in petition which is dismissed but
without any order as to costs.
S.R. Appeal allowed & Petition dismissed
(1) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 474,481-484.
460