Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MANGRULPIR J T. MOTOR SERVICE (P) LTD., & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/04/1971
BENCH:
RAY, A.N.
BENCH:
RAY, A.N.
SHELAT, J.M.
CITATION:
1971 AIR 1804 1971 SCR 561
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ss. 46, 47, 57-Bombay Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1959-Applications for permit-Power of
Regional Transport Authority to call for additional
information and to publish it for objections-Qualifications
of applicants to be considered as on date of application for
permit or as on date of consideration of applications.
HEADNOTE:
The respondents were bus operators who applied for renewal
of permits. which were to expire on different dates between
February 28, 1966 and September 30, 1966. The Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation (appellant herein) applied
for grant of substantive permits in lieu of the renewal
applications made by the respondents. On account of
litigation the applications of the parties could not be
decided for several years. At the meeting of the Regional
Transport Authority on July 29, 1970 when all the
applications were placed for consideration on merits, a
preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the appellant to
the effect that in view of the unusually long time which had
elapsed since the making of the applications in 1965-66 it
had become necessary to call for and consider up to date
information about all the applicants. The Regional
Transport Authority directed all the applicants to file
additional information relating to matters covered by
columns 10 to 16 and 19 of the prescribed form of the
application by August 21, 1970 and directed their
publication and invitation of objections thereon. All the
applicants including the respondents tendered additional up
to date information about their operations in terms of the
order of the Regional Transport Authority. The additional
information was published and objections thereto were
received. The Authority posted all the applications for
consideration on merit at a meeting due to be held on
November 26, 1970. The respondents meanwhile moved the High
Court for an order on the Regional Transport Authority to
forbear from taking into account up to date information
while judging the merits of the contending operators and to
enjoin the said Authority to consider the applications only
on the basis of the information originally filed in the year
1965-66. In appeal by special leave to this Court the
questions for consideration were (i) whether the Regional
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
Transport Authority had power to call for additional
information as it did; (ii) whether such additional
information could be ordered to be published; and (iii)
whether the Regional Transport Authority was bound to decide
the applications on the basis of the qualifications of the
applicants originally given therein.
HELD: (i) In deciding the question of power of the
Regional Transport Authority to call for further information
it has to be borne in mind that the Regional Transport
Authority shall, in considering an application for permit,
have regard among other matters to the interests of the
public generally, the advantages to the public of the
services to be provided, the adequacy of other passenger
transport services, the operation
36-1 S.C. India/71
562
by the applicant of other transport services including those
in respect of which applications from him for permits are
pending, the benefit to any particular locality or location,
likely to be afforded by the service. Therefore in
considering public interest if the Regional Transport
Authority would find that the answers furnished by any
applicant are not full and complete, it will be constricting
the exercise of the power of the Regional Transport
Authority by denying it authority to ask for additional
information for full and detailed consideration of the
applications in the interest of the public. No hard and
fast rule can be laid down as to how the Regional Transport
Authority will act or what the limitations of its powers
will be. It is a statutory body. It is to exercise its
powers in the public interest. Such public interest will
have to be considered with regard to particular matters
enumerated in s. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the
particulars of an application are to be judged with
reference to ss. 46 and 47 in particular of the Act. Rule
68(6) of the. Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 also
enables the State or the Regional Transport Authority, as
the case may be, to require an applicant to appear before it
and to withhold the consideration of the application for the
permit until the applicant has so appeared in person if so
required or by any recognised agent if so permitted, and
until the applicant has furnished such information as may be
required by the Regional Transport Authority in connection
with the application. The words ’in connection with the
application’ are important. These words indicate that the
Regional Transport Authority will have power to ask for
further information. In the absence of the Regional
Transport Authority acting under corrupt motive or malafide
or for any oblique purpose the discretion which is conferred
on the Regional Transport Authority should not be undermined
or restricted.
(ii) Under s. 57 of the Act the application is to be
published in order to enable parties to submit
representation in connection therewith. In the present case
in view of the fact that information was asked for with
regard to specific columns of the application it could not
be denied that the information was in connection with the
application. It was therefore within the competence of the
Regional Transport Authority under s. 57 of the Act to
publish the application or the substance thereof in order to
enable the persons affected thereby to send their
representations to the Regional Transport Authority. It
would be in fulfillment of the objects and purposes of the
Act and advancement of public interest to ensure that the
permit is granted to the most meritorious applicant.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
Therefore it is all the more necessary to publish additional
information in order to have the fullest materials on record
for proper assessment and evaluation of the merits and
demerits.
(iii) The High Court was in error in holding that the
Regional Transport Authority would have to consider the
respective qualifications of the applicants as on the date
of their applications and not as on the date of the actual
consideration by the Regional Transport Authority of the
applications for the grant of permit. Normally the Regional
Transport Authority would consider the applications for the
grant of permits within a short time of the submission of
the applications. If for any reason a long time has elapsed
as in the present appeal, the Regional Transport Authority
will have to consider the various matters enumerated in cls.
(a) to (f) of s. 46 of the Act at the time of the
consideration of the applications. The death or insolvency
of an applicant since the filing of the application cannot
be ignored. The public interest stands in the forefront.
563
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu
Goverdhan Regular Motor Service, & Ors., [1970] 2 S.C.R.
319, Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari & Ors., [1969] 2 S.C.& 507
and A. S. Jalaluddin v. Balasubramaniar Bits Service (P)
Ltd. C.A. No. 161/65 Dt. 31-10-1967, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 117 of 1971.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 20, 1970 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in
Special Civil Application No. 939 of 1970.
M. C. Chagla, Santosh Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for
the appellant.
B. R. L. Iyengar, M. N. Phadke, Naunit Lal, and Swaranjit
Sondhi, for respondents nos. 1 to 6.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment
dated 20 November, 1970 of the Bombay High Court directing
the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of the applica-
tions for stage carriage permits pending before it without
any further delay and without any further adjournment at the
instance of any party whatsoever.
The principal questions for consideration in this appeal
are; first, whether the Regional Transport Authority has
power to call for further or additional information from the
applicants for the grant of permit at the time of
consideration of the applications for the grant of permits
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to
as the Act and secondly whether the Regional Transport
Authority will consider the qualifications of the applicants
as on the date of the consideration of the applications for
grant of permits.
The respondents are private operators. They held substan-
tive permits on various routes. They applied for renewal of
permits which were to expire on different dates between 28th
February, 1966 and 30th September, 1966. The appellant
applied for grant of substantive permits in lieu of the
renewal applications made by the respondents.
While those applications were pending before the Regional
Transport Authority, Nagpur, some private operators on
different routes made an application under Article 226 of
the Constitution challenging the validity of the direction
of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to the Regional
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
Transport Authority to allow ;the State Transport
Corporation an applicant for the grant of
564
permit to furnish complete information in respect of columns
10, 14 and 15 on the prescribed form of their application
for grant of permit. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High
Court by judgment and order dated 5 October, 1967 quashed
the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by
holding that the application filed by the State Transport
Corporation in that case was defective and the Appellate
Committee had no jurisdiction to give the State Transport
Corporation a fresh opportunity to furnish additional
particulars. An appeal was preferred from the judgment of
the High Court to this Court being Civil Appeal No. 1297 of
1968 : Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu
Goverdhan Regular Motor Service & Ors. This Court on 10
September, 1969 held that the Regional Transport Authority
would be acting within its jurisdiction in calling upon an
applicant to give more complete details and to give an
opportunity to the other parties to state their objections.
During the pendency of appeal in the case of Babu Goverdhan
Regular Motor Service, the respondents except respondent No.
4 moved the High Court by Writ Petitions in the year 1969
for hearing of their applications for grant of permit.
Those Writ Petitions were disposed of by the High Court by
consent order dated 20 March, 1969 by which it was agreed
that till the decision of this Court in Babu Goverdhan
Regular Motor Service, the renewal applications of the
respondents and the applications of the appellant in lieu of
renewal would be postponed for consideration.
After the decision of this Court in Babu Goverdhan Regular
Motor Service the Regional Transport Authority held a
meeting on 28 October, 1969 to consider the applications.
The appellant at that meeting sought permission to Me
additional information in the light of the above decision of
this Court. The Regional Transport Authority adjourned the
proceeding till 27 November, 1969. At the meeting held on
27 November, 1969 respondent No. 6 contended that the
Regional Transport Authority must, before proceeding to
consider that application, fix the limit of the number of
permits under section 47(3) of the Act. This step was to be
taken before consideration of the applications for the grant
of permit. The Regional Transport Authority postponed the
consideration of the applications and fixed the next meeting
on 12 December, 1969, so that it would comply with the
provisions of section 47(3) of the Act. No meeting could
however be held for want of quorum and the next meeting was
fixed for 8 January, ’1970.
(1) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 319.
565
The appellant meanwhile by a letter dated 29 December, 1969
addressed to the Regional Transport Authority gave additio-
nal information in respect of columns 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15
of the prescribed form and called upon the Regional
Transport Authority to publish the said information to
enable the contending or competing operators to file
objections. The appellant gave up to date information in
order to enable the Regional Transport Authority to judge
the respective merits of the applicants which, according to
the appellant, could not be done on the basis of information
furnished in the application filed in the year 1966. The
appellant simultaneously furnished copies of the additional
information to the respondents who were the private
operators.
At the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on 21
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
March, 1970 the appellant requested the Regional Transport
Authority for publication of the additional information.
The Regional Transport Authority acceded to the request and
directed the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority
to publish additional information. Some of the respondents
who had initially objected to the receipt and publication of
additional information ultimately withdrew the objections.
At about the time of the application of the information one
of the respondents applied to the High Court for an order
that the Regional Transport Authority was unduly delaying
consideration of the applications on merits. The High Court
by an order dated 30 April, 1970 directed the Regional
Transport Authority to commence consideration of the
applications as expeditiously as possible and within two
months from the date of the order. The High Court further
observed that the applications for the grant of permits were
ripe for hearing and it was not the stage at all for
publishing any information which the appellant might have
lodged with the Regional Transport Authority. The High
Court took the view that the Regional Transport Authority
might call for additional information but it was not the
case there because the appellant of its own sent additional
information and it amounted to an amendment of their
application which was not permissible under the Act and also
in view of the decision of. this Court in Babu Goverdhan
Regular Motor Service case(1).
The Regional Transport Authority held the meeting on 29
July, 1970 and all the applications were placed for
consideration on merit. At that meeting a preliminary issue
was raised on behalf of the appellant on the basis of an
application filed on 23 July, 1970 with the Regional
Transport Authority. to the effect that in view of the
unusually long time which had elapsed since the making of
the applications in the year 1965-66 for the grant of
permits it had become necessary to call for and consider up
to
(1) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 319.
566
date information about all the applicants. The Regional
Transport Authority directed all the applicants to file
additional information relating to matters covered by
columns 10 to 16 and 19 of the prescribed form of the
application by 21 August, 1970 and directed their
publication and invitation of objections thereon.
All the applicants including the respondents tendered addi-
tional up to date information about their operations in
terms of the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
Additional information was published. Objections thereto
were received. The Regional Transport Authority posted all
the applications for consideration on merit at a meeting due
to be held on 26 November, 1970.
The respondents meanwhile moved the High Court for an order
on the Regional Transport Authority to forbear from taking
into account up to date information while judging the merits
of the contending operators and to enjoin the Regional
Transport Authority to consider the applications only on the
basis of the information originally filed in the year 1965-
66, and not on the basis of any up to date information. The
High Court by judgment and order dated 20 November, 1970
directed the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of all
the applications at the meeting on 26 November, 1970 and not
to postpone consideration and disposal of the applications
on any ground whatsoever. This is the judgment out of which
the present appeal arises.
The High Court held that applications filed under section
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
46. of the Act could not be permitted to be amended and
calling for additional information by the Regional Transport
Authority would have the effect of granting amendment of
applications. Secondly, the High Court held that the order
of the Regional Transport Authority dated 29 July, 1970
virtually permitted amendment of the applications by the
private operators as well as by the appellant and this
course was contrary to law and was opposed to the previous
directions given by the High Court on 30 April, 1970 to the
Regional Transport Authority, to dispose of the applications
within two months. Thirdly, the High Court held that the
Regional Transport Authority had to consider the respective
qualifications of the applicants as on the date of their
applications and not as on the date of the actual
consideration by the Regional Transport Authority.
Fourthly, the High Court held that while considering the
applications the Regional Transport Authority under section
47 of the Act could call for such specific information as it
needed from a particular applicant, but in the present case
full information from all the applicants had already been
called for and was now on the record of the Regional
Transport Authority and therefore the Regional Transport
Authority should dispose of the applications pending before
it for five years without further delay.
567
The first question which falls for consideration is whether
the Regional Transport Authority can call for further or
additional information from the applicants. The
applications for stage carriage permit are to contain
particulars mentioned in section 46 of the Act and in
clauses (a) to (f) thereof which are as follows
"Application for stage carriage permit.-An
application for a permit in respect of a
service of stage carriages or to use a
particular motor vehicle as a stage carriage
(in this Chapter referred to as a stage
carriage permit) shall, as far as may be,
contain the following particulars namely:
(a) the route or routes or the area or areas
to which the application relates;
(b) the number of vehicles it is proposed to
operate in relation to each route or area and
the type and seating capacity of each such
vehicle;
(c) the minimum and maximum number of daily
trips proposed to be provided in relation to
each route or area and the time table of the
normal trips;
(d) the number of vehicles intended to be
kept in reserve to maintain the service and to
provide for special occasion;
(e) the arrangements intended to be made for
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."
An application for stage carriage permit is
under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules 1959 to
be made in the form prescribed by rule 80 and
described as form P. St. S. A. The prescribed
form of the application contains 22 columns.
In the present appeal, the columns which are
relevant for consideration are columns 10 to
16 and 19. These columns are as follows:
"10. Number of vehicles kept in reserve to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
maintain the service regularly and to provide
for special occasion
11. Arrangements made for housing and repair
of vehicles (to be given in detail)
12. Arrangements made for convenience and
comfort of passengers
568
13. Arrangements made for storage and safe
custody of luggage
14. Particulars of any stage or contract
carriage permit valid in the State, held
by the applicant
15. Particulars of any permit held by the
applicant in respect of the use of any
transport vehicle in any other State
16. Whether any of the permits stated above
has been subject of an order of suspension or
cancellation in last four years. If so, give
details
19. I am at present in possession of
vehicles available for use under the permit
applied for."
Section 47 (1) of the Act which deals with
the power of the Regional Transport Authority
to grant permits is as follows
"Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in
considering application for stage carriage
permit: (1) A Regional Transport Authority
shall, in considering an application for a
stage carriage permit, have regard to the fol-
lowing matters, namely;
(a) the interests of the public generally
(b) the advantages to the public of the
service
to be provided including the saving of time
likely to be effected thereby and
any convenience arising from journeys not
being broken;
(c) the adequacy of other passenger
transport services operating or likely to
operate in the near future, whether by road or
other means, between the places to be served ;
(d) the benefit to any particular locality
or localities likely to be afforded by the
service
(e) the operation by the applicant of other
transport services, including those in respect
of which applications from him for permits are
pending ;
(f) the condition of the roads included in
the proposed route or area;
and shall also take into consideration any
representations made by persons already
providing passenger transport facilities by
any means along or near the proposed route or
area, or by any association representing
persons interested in the provision. of road
transport facilities recognised in this behalf
by the State Government,
569
or by any local authority or police authority
within whose jurisdiction any part of the
proposed route or area lies
Provided that other conditions being equal an
application for a stage carriage permit from a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
cooperative society registered or deemed to
have been registered under any enactment in
force for the time being shall, as far as may
be, be given preference over applications from
individual owners."
The other section relevant for purposes of grant of permits
is section 57 of the Act which deals with the procedure of
the Regional Transport Authority in considering applications
for stage carriage permit. There are 10 sub-sections of
section 57. The two important sub-sections for the purposes
of the present appeal are section (2) and (3). Sub-section
(2) deals with the time for making applications for grant of
permits. No dispute arises on that subsection in the
present appeal. Sub-s. (3) provides that on receipt of an
application for stage carriage permit the Regional Transport
Authority shall make the application available for
inspection at the office of the Authority and shall publish
the applications or the substance thereof in the prescribed
manner together with a notice of the date before which
representations in connection therewith may be submitted and
the date, not being less than thirty days from such
publication on which, and the time and place at which, the
application and any representations received win be
considered. The only question which arises on sub-section
(3) of section 57 of the Act in the present appeal is
whether further or additional information as may be called
for by the Regional Transport Authority will also have to be
published.
In the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service(1) this
Court held that the form prescribed by the Rules requiring
the furnishing of information on the various particulars and
matters referred to therein was valid and section 46 of the
Act, Rule 80 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules and the
prescribed form would all have to be read together in order
to find out the scheme of the Act on the question of power
of the Regional Transport Authority to ask for full and
complete information.
Section 46 of the Act which deals with applications for
stage carriage permit enumerates the particulars to be given
in the applications. The prescribed form is with reference
to these particulars. In the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular
Motor Service(1) the State Transport Corporation in filling
up columns 14 and 15 with regard to particulars of stage or
contract carriage permits held by the applicant in the State
and in any other State did not give full particulars of
permits and ended by using the word "et cetera". The
(1) [1970] 2 S.C.R.319.
570
High Court in the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor
Service held that the application of the appellant in that
case was invalid’ because the application did not give full
and complete details in respect of columns 14 and 15. This
Court held that the applicant in that case should have given
an exhaustive list of the other permits held by it in the
State or in any other State and therefore the State
authorities could call upon a party to give complete
details. The High Court in the present case expressed the
view that giving of details would amount to an amendment of
the application and that this Court in the case of Babu
Goverdhan Regular Motor Service(1) held that there could be
no amendment of an application. The decision of this Court
is not to that effect. If particulars will be furnished
these particulars will become part of the application. The
application is to that extent amended.
In deciding the question of power of the Regional Transport
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
Authority to call for further information it has to be borne
in mind that the Regional Transport Authority shall, in
considering an application for permit, have regard among
other matters to the interests of the public generally, the
advantages to the public of the services to be provided, the
adequacy of other passenger transport services, the
operation by the applicant of other transport services
including those in respect of which applications from him
for permits are pending, the benefit to any particular
locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service.
Therefore in considering public interest if the Regional
Transport Authority would find that the answers furnished by
any applicant are not full and complete, it will be
constricting the exercise of power of the Regional Transport
Authority by denying it authority to ask for additional
information for full and detailed consideration of the
applications in the interest of the public. No hard and
fast rule can be laid down as to how the Regional Transport
Authority will act or what the limitations of their powers
will be. It is a statutory body. It is to exercise
statutory powers in the public interest. Such public
interest would have to be considered with regard to
particular matters enumerated in section 47 of the Act and
the particulars of an application are to be judged with
reference to sections 46 and 47 in particular of the Act.
Reference may also be made to rule 68(6) of the Bombay Motor
Vehicles Rules which enables the State or the Regional
Transport Authority, as the case may be, to require an
applicant to appear before it and to withhold the con-
sideration of the application for the permit until the
applicant has so appeared in person if so required or by any
recognised agent if so permitted, and until the applicant
has furnished such information as may be required by the
Transport Authority in connection with the application. The
words "in connection with the application" are important.
These words indicate that the Regional,
(1) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 319.
571
Transport Authority will have power to ask for further
information.
In the present case, on 29 July, 1970 the Regional Transport
Authority found that the applications which had been
submitted in the year 1965-66 would hardly represent the
real merits of the operators in the year 1970. The Regional
Transport Authority therefore directed the applicants to
file additional information relating to matters covered by
columns 10 to 16 and 19 of the prescribed form. The further
direction was that the information would be filed before 21
August, 1970, and would be published and objections would be
called for within 15 days from the date of publication.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the information
supplied by the applicants pursuant to the direction of the
Regional Transport Authority would be voluminous and the
publication would take a long time. Under section 57 of the
Act the application is to be published in order to enable
parties to submit representation in connection therewith.
Publication therefore is a statutory obligation. In view of
the fact that information was asked for with regard to
specific columns of the application it cannot be denied that
the information was in connection with the application. It
will therefore be within the competence of the Regional
Transport Authority under section 57 of the Act to publish
the application or the substance thereof in order to enable
the persons affected thereby to send their representations
to the Regional Transport Authority.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
The Regional Transport Authority is entrusted by the statute
to consider the applications for the grant of permit.
Application are on a printed form. It will be, in the
interest of the applicants to furnish all information. If
however for any reason, the Regional Transport Authority
will require further information, it will depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case as to whether the power
is exercised bona fide, and whether the discretion that is
conferred on the Regional Transport Authority is exercised
properly and judiciously. In the absence of the Regional
Transport Authority acting under any corrupt motive or mala
fide or for a oblique purpose the discretion which is
conferred on the Regional Transport Authority should not be
undermined and restricted.
The High Court was in error on the second question in hold-
ing that the Regional Transport Authority would have to
consider the respective qualifications of the applicants as
on the date of their applications and not as on the date of
the actual consideration by the Regional Transport Authority
of the applications for the grant of permit. Normally, the
Regional Transport Authority would consider the applications
for the grant of permits within a short time of the
submission of the applications. If for any reason
572
a long time elapses as in the present appeal, the Regional
Transport Authority will have to consider the various
matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of section 46 of
the Act at the time of consideration of the applications for
the grant of permits. The public interest stands in the
forefront. If the Regional Transport Authority will find
that the applicant has become insolvent subsequent to the
submission of the application it cannot be expected that the
Regional Transport Authority will yet have to grant a permit
to the insolvent applicant. In refusing the grant of permit
the solvency of the applicant will enter the area of
appreciation and assessment of the merits and demerits of
the applicant. Again, if an applicant died subsequent to
the submission of the application the Regional Transport
Authority will have to consider at the time of the grant of
permit whether it will allow the heirs. or legal
representatives to stand in the shoes of the deceased
applicant. This question arose before this Court in Dhani
Devi v. Sant Bihari & Ors. (1). This Court held that the
Regional Transport Authority would have power to substitute
the heirs/successors in place of the deceased applicant in
the records of the proceedings and allow the successors to
prosecute the application.
In the unreported decision of this Court in A. S. Jalaluddin
v. Balasubramaniar Bus Service (P) Ltd. and Anr.(2) the
Regional Transport Authority refused to grant permit to an
applicant on the ground that he did not have either main
office or branch office or residence on the route applied
for. The applicant preferred an appeal to the State
Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order and
granted the permit to the appellant. Before the Tribunal
the appellant’s counsel in that case stated that the
applicant had sent to the Regional Transport Authority in
advance of the date fixed for consideration of the
application for the grant of permit a letter stating that
the appellant had secured a branch office on the route in
question. The finding of the Tribunal was challenged by
writ petitions in the High Court. The learned Single Judge
of the High Court held that the finding of the Tribunal
could not be challenged but the Division Bench held that the
finding of the Tribunal as to possession of branch office
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
and residence on the route by the appellant was without
evidence. This Court set aside the Bench decision of the
High Court and restored the judgment of the learned Single
Judge by holding that there was material before the Tribunal
that the appellant had secured a branch office. This
decision establishes two propositions: First, that an
applicant can furnish additional or further information in
connection with the application before the Regional
Transport Authority and, secondly that the Regional
Transport Authority is competent to
(1) [1969] 2 S.C.R.507.
(2)C.A.No.161 of 1965 decided on 31-10-1967.
573
act on such information at the time of consideration of the
applications for the grant of permits. It will always have
to be found out in the facts and circumstances of each case
as to the nature of information, the manner of furnishing it
in order to decide whether the Regional Transport Authority
was entitled to ask for such information and the applicant
was entitled to furnish it.
If the Regional Transport Authority will have at the date of
the consideration of the grant of permit information which
may disentitle the applicant by reason of conviction,
insolvency, loss of fleet, lack of facilities, or any
subsequent event of importance as would affect the grant of
permit to an applicant, it would be in fulfilment of the
objects and purposes of the Act and advancement of public
interest to ensure that the permit is granted to the most
meritorious applicant. Therefore it is all the more
necessary to’, publish additional information in order to
have the fullest materials on record for proper assessment
and evaluation of the merits and demerits.
The High Court was wrong in directing the Regional Transport
Authority to proceed on the basis of applications submitted
in the year 1965-66. The Regional Transport Authority will
dispose of the applications on the basis of further
information forwarded by the applicants and published by the
Regional Transport Authority and representations by parties
in connection therewith as expeditiously as possible. The
obvious need not be stressed that long time has elapsed and
the Regional Transport Authority should proceed in
accordance with law without further delay. The appeal is
accepted. The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
Each party will pay and bear their own costs.
G. C. Appeal allowed.,
574