Civil Appeal No 2603 2605 of 1987
From the Judgment and order dated 8121986 of the Rajasthan High Court in DB Special Appeal No 889 975 and 1135 of 1986
GL Sanghi and Mrs Rani Chhabra for the Appellants
Shanti Bhushan and SK Jain for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN J
Special Leave granted
Appeals are disposed of by this order
The three appellants had been granted permits on a route from Bhadra to Hissar via Adampur
This route lay both in the State of Rajasthan and in the State of Haryana and was thus an inter State route
When the permits were about to expire the petitioners filed applications for their renewal in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter called the Act 
At the same time the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation  also moved applications before the Regional Transport Authority Bikaner for the grant of fresh permits to it on the same route
The applications for renewal of permits made by the petitioners as well as the applications for the grant of permits by the Corporation were heard together by the Re gional Transport Authority Bikaner RTA on several dates the 643 last of which was the 6th of November 1981
On that date orders were reserved by the RTA The RTA however passed its order only on 27th November 1982 about a year after the date of the hearing
It rejected the renewal applications of the petitioners and granted permits to the Corporation in respect of the above route
Aggrieved by the orders of the RTA the petitioners filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal STAT The STAT dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners and confirmed the order of the RTA The petitioners filed writ petitions in the High Court of Rajasthan which were dismissed by a Single Judge on 2 1st July 1986
Further appeals preferred by the petitioners and certain other operators were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan by its judgment and order dated 8th December 1986
These Special Leave Petitions have been preferred against the order of the Division Bench dated 8th December 1986
We have come to the conclusion that the order of the RTA and consequently the orders of the STAT and the High Court should be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the RTA for fresh consideration on the short ground that the petitioners have not had a fair opportunity of putting forward and being heard on their contentions relevant to the issue before the RTA The principal issue that had to be considered by the RTA was whether the claims of the Corporation for the grant of a permit had precedence over the claims of the petitioners for renewal
This issue had to be decided in the context of two statutory provisions
The first is section 47 1H of the Act which reads as follows Notwithstanding anything contained in this section an application for a stage carriage permit from a State transport undertaking for operating in any inter State route shall be given preference over all other applications Provided that the authority shall not grant a permit under this sub section unless it is satisfied that the State transport undertaking would be able to operate in the inter State route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in any notified area or notified route as is referred to in subsection 3 of section 68D where the undertaking operates the service
644 Explanation For the purposes of this sub section inter State route means any route lying contiguously in two or more States
The second relevant provision is the third proviso inserted in section 582 of the Act by an amendment applicable to the State of Rajasthan
This sub section in so far it is material for our present purposes reads  2 A permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit Provided further that other conditions being equal an application for stage carriage permit by a State transport undertaking as defined in section 68A shall be given preference over applications from individual owners and cooperative societies
 The arguments before the RTA primarily ranged round the question whether the terms of the proviso to section 471H were fulfilled in the present case or not
The petitioners as well as operators on several other routes whose requests for renewal had also been countered by applications for permits by the Corporation con tended that the Corporation was not in a position to operate in the inter State routes in question without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in routes which had already been nationalized under Chapter IV A of the Act
The RTA has applied its mind to this contention in what may be described as a piecemeal manner
This was because applications made by several private operators and the corporation in regard to various routes came up for consideration by it in separate meetings held at different places on different occasions
In fact it is this which also explains the delay in the passing of its order by the RTA in the present case
In course of the hearing before us we called upon the respondents to produce the original records
These show that the mat ter relating to renewal of permits of six operators including the preG sent petitioners was heard on 6111981 and orders reserved
On 30 118 1 the counsel for the Corporation made a request to the RTA that certain other matters pertaining to renewals of permits in the Bikaner region were coming up for consideration on 161281 and that therefore the orders in the instant cases may be deferred till after the other matters were also heard by the RTA This request of the counsel for the Corporation was accepted by the RTA The other 645 matters referred to could not be heard on 16121981 but got adjourned from time to time
The order sheet of the RTA in the present case shows that the decision in the present cases was deferred on three subsequent occasions upto 22031982
The records do not indicate what happened thereafter but it appears that the decision was postponed on subsequent occasions also for the same reason and ultimately announced by the RTA On the 27th of November 1982 after the connected matters had been heard
This is clear from the order of the RTA which in arriving at its final decision has followed the orders passed by it on 15982  241182 in certain other matters and the orders passed by the RTA Jaipur on 7482  10982 in relation to two routes falling within its jurisdiction
The short grievance of the petitioners was that by adopting the above procedure the RTA has imported into its final decision and order various transactions facts events and arguments of which they had no notice and which they had not been given a proper opportunity to rebut
The STAT dealt with the argument by simply observing that for considering the obtainable facts a fresh opportunity to appellants in my opinion was not very much required as there would not be any end to it The learned Single Judge in the High Court recognised that If such long spell time has lapsed and such new material has come into existence the proper course for the RTA should have been to get the case listed back for comments of both the parties but did not think that the case warranted any interference on this aspect
 The Division Bench observed It was urged on behalf of the appellants that the Regional Transport Authority took into account events after hearing and closing the cases without giving any opportunity to the appellants to rebut that material
It was also urged that out of 83 documents filed by the appellants before the Regional Transport Authority in rebuttal of this material only 2 were accepted while remaining 81 were rejected
There is no merit in this contention
The mere fact that the appellants filed these documents out of which two were taken into account shows that they had the knowledge of the subsequent material being used for the purpose of deciding these cases and it is for this reason that they filed these documents out of which two were also taken into account
Moreover the subsequent events relate only to matters of record pertaining to operation of the existing routes by the 646 State Transport Undertaking
There is thus no prejudice to A the appellants
This argument is therefore devoid of any merit
In our opinion the approach of the STAT as well as the High Court was erroneous
There is no doubt that the RTA in deciding the present case has been influenced not merely by the discussions which took place during the hearing of the applications of these petitioners and the Corporation but also the facts circumstances and arguments that surfaced at the meetings held by it in relation to various other permits in the State
It is true that the point that arose for consideration viz whether the Corporation had placed sufficient material on record to satisfy the RTA concerned that the grant of a further permit or further permits to it would not prejudicially affect the nationalised services already run by it was in a sense a point common to all the meetings
Nevertheless the grant of a permit in each case is a separate issue to be decided on the facts and circumstances placed on record in relation to that case
In support of their claims for permits the petitioners had placed some material before the RTA and so also the Corporation
If in reaching its decision the RTA desires to take into account circumstances and facts placed by other petitioners or by the Corporation at other meetings the petitioners should atleast have had an opportunity of knowing what that material was
This could have been done either by allowing the petitioners to participate at the other meetings or by giving the substance of that material to the petitioners and giving them an opportunity of rebutting it before passing the final order
In this context it is important to remember that the Corporation was a party at all the meetings and was aware of all the materials that had been placed on record by other operators as well as by themselves thereat
On the contrary the petitioners were handicapped in that they had no knowledge of the material placed at the other meetings
In our opinion the requirements of natural justice were flouted by the failure of the RTA to apprise the petitioners atleast broadly of what had transpired at the other meetings
The High Court has observed that the petitioners had not been prejudiced as is seen from the fact that they had placed several documents on record in rebuttal of the Corporation s case
It may be as pointed out by the High Court that the petitioners were vaguely aware of the nature of the general contentions urged as well as the evidence placed by the Corporation and also tried to put in some documents to controvert the material placed on record by the Corporation but they 647 had no direct knowledge of such material
Further the petitioners  grievance is that out of 83 documents placed by the petitioners only two were considered
We are not able to appreciate the High Court s answer to this contention in the extract we have quoted above
We could have understood it if the other 81 documents which the petitioners relied upon had been found to be irrelevant
The RTA has not discussed this evidence
Nor does the STAT appear to have considered the material or given the petitioners an opportunity atleast at the appellate stage to attempt to substantiate its contentions by reference to these documents
In the Special Leave Petitions before us the petitioners have catalogued several circumstances to substantiate a contention that the Corporation was not in a position to undertake the plying of buses on the routes in question without prejudice to the efficiency of the nationalised services already being run by it
We express no opinion on the correctness of these averments or the effect they can have on the satisfaction to be reached by the Regional Transport Authority but it appears manifest that the impugned order rejecting the renewal applications of the petitioners has been passed without there being reasonable opportunity given to the petitioners to counter the case put forward by the Corporation
On this short ground that the procedural requirements of natural justice have not been complied with we think the impugned order should be set aside and the RTA directed to pass a fresh order after giving the opportunity to the Petitioners to put forward their contentions
Shri Shanti Bhushan learned counsel for the Corporation raised two contentions
He urged firstly that the present case was governed by section 582 and not by section 47 1H and that the Corporation was rightly granted precedence over the private operators
We are unable to accept this contention for two reasons
In the first place the grant of a permit for an inter State route is governed by the special provision contained in section 47 lH and not by section 58 which is a general provision
Secondly even under Section 58 the Corporation is not entitled to a permit automatically by reason of the fact that it is a State Road Transport Undertaking
It is entitled to a priority over private operators only on other things being equal
In other words even if section 58 is to apply the RTA has to apply its mind to the relative merits of the private operators on the one hand and the Corporation on the other and it is only if both of them stand on the same footing that the Corporation would be entitled to a preference
This would necessarily involve a hearing by the RTA of the merits of both the contending parties
648 The second contention of counsel is based on an interpretation of A section 471 H
The principle and ratio of this provision has been discussed and approved by this Court in Sher Singh vs Union of India AIR 1984 SC 209
This provision no doubt enables the Corporation to have a preference over private operators and individuals but this is subject to a condition precedent that it should satisfy the Authority that it E3 would be able to operate the inter State route for which permit is sought without detriment to the efficiency and adequacy of the nationalised services it is already running in the State
Shri Shanti Bhushan would contend that this is a matter on which the Regional Transport Authority has to reach a subjective satisfaction in the light of such material as it may be able to gather and that it is not necessary that it should be arrived at after giving an opportunity to all the persons appearing before the Authority
We cannot accept this interpretation
Like analogous provisions contained in several statutes which require or permit certain action to be taken on the satisfaction of a particular specified authority the provision in section 47 lH also requires the RTA to arrive at its satisfaction not subjectively but on an objective consideration of the various facts and circumstances placed before it
It will at once be obvious that such a satisfaction cannot be reached by the Authority without hearing the various operators
The matter comes up before the Authority on a contest between an application for a permit or a renewal application of a private operator and an application for permit by the Corporation
Naturally the Corporation will place before the Authority some material to satisfy the Tribunal that the condition mentioned in the proviso to section 471H is satisfied
The RTA
On its own can have no method of assessing the merits of this plea
It is only the private operators who are seeking permits for themselves that may be in a position to place material which would show that the Corporation does not have the capacity to take up this additional responsibility of running buses on the inter State route for which it seeks a permit
It is clearly the duty of the RTA to consider the evidence placed by both the parties allow each party an opportunity to rebut the material placed by the other and arrive at its satisfaction one way or the other
The satisfaction contemplated under section 47 lH is a satisfaction to be arrived at on the basis of such a quasi judicial enquiry conducted by the RTA It is therefore not possible to accept the contention that the petitioners were not required to be heard before the RTA reached its conclusion in favour of the Corporation
For the reasons discussed above we hold that the petitioners  applications for renewal of permits as well as the Corporation s appli 649 cation for fresh permits on the inter State route Bhadra to Hissar via Adampur require to be considered afresh
We therefore set aside the order of Regional Transport Authority dated 27111982 the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 201 983 as well as the order of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 21st July 1986 and the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 8121986
The matter will stand remanded to the file of the RTA Bikaner for being disposed of afresh in the light of the above observations
The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs
SL Appeals allowed


Summary:
 Part III of the sets out the provisions relating to the settlement of disputes regarding elections to the offices of the President and the Vice President of India
Section 143 thereof requires that an ekction petition should be presented in accordance with the provisions of that Part and of the rules made by this Court under article 145 of the Constitution
The rules so made are contained in OXXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules 1966
Rule 34 thereof provides that subject to the provisions of that order or any Special order or directions of the Court the procedure on an election petition shall follow as nearly as may be the procedure in proceedings before the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction which procedure is set out in OXXIII
Rule 6 of o
XXIII states inter alia that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action
Respondent No 1 was declared elected as the President of India at an election held in July 1987
The petitioner who had contested in the said election as a candidate filed this petition questioning the validity of the election of respondent No 1 and praying for a declaration that he was the successful candidate at that election
Rejecting the petition  HELD In the circumstances of this case the Court has no choice except to reject the petition as required under r 6 of OXXIII of 526 the Supreme Court Rules 1966 as it does not disclose any cause of A action
537B i Section 18 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Act 1952 is exhaustive of the grounds on which the election of the President or the Vice President can be declared void
An election may be set aside under cla of section 181 if it is established that the offence of bribery or undue influence as explained in Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code had been committed by the returned candidate or by any person with the consent of the returned candidate
In order to succeed on the grounds mentioned in section 181a it has to be established that the offence of bribery or undue influence had been committed at the election by the returned candidate himself or by any person with his consent
530G H 531A R ii The manner in which the present petition has been drafted is not in accordance with the Rules
Ordinarily the petition should state in a narrative form succinctly and clearly all the facts as may be necessary to enable the respondents and the Court to understand the case of the petitioner
This is not the case here
The first part of the petition contains 13 questions and the answers given by the petitioner to those questions
A reading of all these 13 questions and answers given there to be the petitioner shows that the only ground on which the petitioner wished to call in question the election of the 1st respondent is that the issue of a whip by the Congress I Party to its legislators on the eve of the ekction asking them to cast their votes in favour of the 1st respondent was in the nature of a threat amounting to undue influence which is one of the two grounds set out in section 181a
The allegations made in this part of the petition suggest that the specific case of the petitioner is that the said act of the influence had been committed by the members of the CongressI Party
There is no allegation that any act amounting to undue influence was committed either by respondent No 1 himself or by any other person with his consent
Even in the second part of the petition which is entitled Notable points  and the third part of the petition containing grounds to declare the election of the returned candidate as void there is no averment that either the returned candidate himself had committed any act of undue influence or any other person had committed any act of undue influence with his consent
532A E iii At the hearing after getting the entire petition read out the Court asked the petitioner to point out whether there was any allegation that the lst respondent had himself committed any undue influence or 527 any other person with the consent of the 1st respondent had committed such an act or any allegation which required to be tried and the petitioner was not able to point out any part of the petition in which such an allegation had been made
In view of this infirmity we have not found it necessary to examine whether the issuing of the whip by any political party amounts to undue influence vitiating an election even when such an act is committed by the returned candidate or with his consent by some other person
536G H 537A iv The petitioner did not appear to be quite serious about his case
At one stage he contended having himself filed the petition before the Court that this Court had no competence to hear the case and at another stage he wanted 51 Judges to hear his petition when the maximum permissible strength of this Court is about one half of tha number and the existing strength of this Court is less than one third of that number
While we expect every conscientious citizen eligible to file an election petition to question an election on the grounds prescribed by the Act we do not wish that any petitioner should make use of this Court as a forum to file a petition without giving adequate thought to its contents and also to the provisions of law governing the case merely to seek some cheap publicity
537C E Charan Lal Sahu vs Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy l1978 3 SCR 1 and Charan Lal SaJlu  ORS vs Giani Zail Singh  Anr  relied on