Appeal No 1278 of 1969
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 13 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No 1060 of 1967
CK Daphtary Yogeshwar Prasad SK Davon and section Bagga for the appellants
HR Gokhale JP Goyal Ilyas Hussain and VC Prashar for respondents Nos 1 and 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat J
The question arising in this appeal by certificate may be stated thus When an applicant applies for a permit to run a passenger bus service on the ground that the route for which he applies though one not yet opened is necessary in public interest but the Regional Transport Authority comes to
the conclusion that it does not and thereupon rejects his application whether his order is one under section 48 of the  4 of 1939 and is therefore appealable under section 64a of that Act  The route involved in this case was the one between Meerut and Dankaur which had no direct passenger bus service
There were however two routes which were being operated namely one from Meerut to Bulandsharhar and the other from Siana to Dankaur one crossing the other so that if one wanted to go from Meerut to Dankaur there was no direct service and therefore he would have first to travel in the bus running from Meerut to Bulandshahar get down at a place near Gulsothi and catch the bus running from Siana to Dankaur
This was the position when the appellants amongst others applied to the Regional Transport Authority for permits to operate
a direct service from Meerut to Dankaur
This was therefore not a case where the RTA had already decided upon opening the new route fixed the number of permits necessary for such a route and then invited applications from operators
Nevertheless the RTA follow 245 ing the procedure laid down in section 57 of the Act published these applications to which objections
were raised amongst others by those who were operating on the routes
earlier referred to
These applications came up for consideration in the meeting held before the RTA on July 28 1965 when Item 3 of the Agenda for that meeting was To pronounce decision regarding recognition and classification of M eerut to Dankaur via Hapur Gulsothi Sikandarabad route
and grant of permits thereon
 It is apparent that Item 3 involved two questions for determination of the RTA a whether the route proposed by the appellants and others should be opened and b if so to whom amongst the applicants should permit or permits depending upon the number of permits he
should decide upon should be granted
After hearing the applicants and those who opposed them the RTA was satisfied that there was no sufficient demand for such a direct service and therefore there was no justification for opening the proposed new route
Having arrived at that  conclusion the question of granting or not granting permits to individual applicants did not arise and he rejected the applications of the  appellants and other applicants
Appeals having been filed before the Appellate Tribunal the Tribunal reversed the order of the RTA and granted permits to the three appellants
The respondents thereupon filed writ petitions in the High Court for quashing the order of the Tribunal contending that no appeal against the order of the
RTA lay under section 64a and that con sequently the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such appeals and grant permits to the appellants
The learned Single Judge of the High Court who
heard the writ petitions in the first instance dismissed them but on appeal against his order the Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that no appeal against the said order of the RTA lay under section 64a and accordingly allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Tribunal section order
This appeal is directed against this order
Counsel for the appellants urged that there was
no provision in the Act separately providing for the RTA to decide first as to whether particular route proposed by an applicant should be opened or not
It was argued that the provisions of Ch IV and in particular sections 47 and 57 show that once an application for a permit is made and is published and objections thereto are invited and the RTA applies his mind to it and rejects it no matter what his reasons for such rejection are his order amounts to
a refusal under section 48 and is appealable under section 64a
The rival contention on the other hand was that section 473 which 
C170 4 246 contains the power of the RTA to first determine the number of permits necessary for a particular route which decision as held by this Court is not appealable under section 64a contains also the power to decide whether a proposed route should be opened or not and that it is only after these two points are first decided that the question who amongst the applicants should be granted permits arises
It is at this latter stage that the question of granting or refusing to grant a permit arises under section 48 and it is against an order under that section that an appeal under 64a is provided
The argument was based on the principle that a right of appeal is not something which is inherent but is that which and to the extent it is provided for by the statute
The provisions of the Act relevant to the questions raised in this appeal as also their scheme have been more than once examined by this Court
There is therefore no necessity to analyse them once more
In Abdul Mateen vs
R K Pandey1 the question was whether the Bihar Government acting under section 64 A as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act 1950 had the power to increase the number of permits for which applications had been invited by the RTA In negativing the claim that the State Government had such power this Court inter alia held that section 47 3 was concerned with a general order limiting stage carriages on a consideration of matters specified in section 47 and that such an order can be modified by the RTA if it so decides one way or the other
But such a modification is not a matter of consideration when it is dealing with the actual grant of permit under section 48 read with section 57 for at that stage what the RTA has to do is to choose between various applicants who may have applied under section 46
The Court held that that is not the stage when the general order passed under section 473 can be reconsidered for the order under section 48 is subject to section 47 including the provisions of section 47  3  under which the general order limiting the number of permits is passed
At page 531 of the Report the Court further held that the appeal contemplated under section 64 is by a person who is aggrieved by the order specified therein and does not contemplate any appeal against the general order passed under section 47 3 
On this view of section 47 it was lastly held that when an appeal is taken from an order under section 48 and a revision is  applied for under section 64 A of the Bihar Amendment Act the power of the Appellate Authority as also of the State Government as the revisional authority is as much subject to section 473 as the power of the RTA under section 48 ie it cannot grant a permit beyond the limit
already decided upon under section 473
In Ms Java Ram Motar Service 1  247 vs
section Rajarathinam1 the RTA had already introduced the new bus route and then had invited applications for permits
34 applicants applied for permits
The RTA however rejected them all on the ground that there was after all no need for the new route
On these facts the question was whether a person whose application is rejected by the RTA on the ground that there was no need for a new route in spite of his decision previously arrived at that such a route was necessary could appeal under section 64a against such rejection
Following the decision in Abdul Mateen s case2 we held that the Authority had already resolved to introduce a new bus route and invited applications for a permit under sec
572
It could no doubt have acted under sec
47  3  and modified its earlier decision
instead what it did was that while considering the question as to who amongst the 34 applicants should be granted that permit ie at the stage not under section 473 but under sec
48  1  it decided to refuse all applications on the ground that there was no longer any need for any such permit
In other words though the earlier order was still intact the authority rejected the applications on the ground that there was no need for any fresh permit
The order was clearly contrary to the previous order passed under sec
473 and therefore cannot be said to be in consonance with sec
47 as required by sec
48  1 
The order was not one under sec
473 but under sec
481 refusing thereby the applications including those of the appellant and the respondents and was therefore subject to an appeal under sec
64a
 Does it make any difference to
the principle laid down in these decisions whether the RTA invites applications having previously decided to introduce a new route or whether an applicant proposes such a new route and applies for a permit
Abdul Mateen s case2 and the case of Java Ram Motor Service1 were cases where the RTA had first decided to introduce A new route and had then invited application
On the other hand in R Obliswami Naidu vs The Addl
State Transport Appellate Tribunal Madras3 no such decision had been previously taken by the RTA and the appellant had applied for a permit on a new route
The question canvassed there was whether the RTA had first to decide the necessity of such a new route and then having come to such a decision proceed 1 CA 95 of l965 decd
on October 27 1967
2  3 CA 1426 of 1968 dec on Feb 17 1969
248 to examine the question whether an applicaNT should or should not be  granted the permit
The Appellate Tribunal had held that the procedure followed by the RTA was not in accordance with law as it had failed to determine the question of the need for a service for the new route applied for by the appellant before deciding his application for permit and had contravened the provisions of section 473
The appellant challenged the order by a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed
In the appeal in this Court against that order Hegde J speaking for the Court upheld the view of the Appellate Tribunal and held that though section 47 3 if read by itself did not throw light on the question secs
47 and 57 when read together made it clear that the RTA had first to arrive at a decision whether there was the necessity for
the new route and then decide under section 48 whether the appellant should be granted a permit or not This decision clearly shows that it makes no difference between cases where applications are invited by the RTA after having come to the conclusion as to the necessity for a new route or where an applicant himself proposes a new route and applies for a permit
In both the cases the RTA has to decide before reaching the stage of section 48 when he considers individual applications for deciding as to whom amongst the applicants the permit should be granted whether the new route is necessary in the interest of the public
The decisions referred to above in our opinion clearly lay down that the RTA has first to make a general order as stated in Abdul Mateen s case1 under section 473 as to the number of permits necessary for a new route and he cannot exceed that limit while he is at the next stage when he considersrs under section 48 read with section 57 as to who amongst the applicants shouId be granted the permit or permits
Such a general order limiting the number of permits presupposes that he has come to a decision that the new route either proposed by him or by an applicant or applicants is necessary in public interest
Obviously he does not have to decide the number of permits necessary for such a new route unless he first decides that the new route should be opened
If the order as to the number of permits is a general order passed under section 47 3 in respect of which the individual applicants are not concerned with and is anterior to the stage under section 48 when applications of the individual operators are taken into considerationand therefore not appealable under section 64a it must follow a fortiori that the decision as to whether the new route is necessary
or not is equally a general order arrived at either earlier or contemporaneously with the decision as 10 the number of permits
If the latter order is not appealable 1 249 it cannot be that the former ie the decision whether the new route is necessary or not is not an equally general order with which individual applicants are not concerned and can appeal against it under section 64a
On this view it would at first sight appear as if the RTA has an unlimited or unbridled power in connection with the decision as to whether a proposed route should be opened or not
That it is not so is clear from section 64 A introduced in the Act by Act 100 of 1955 which confers revisional power on the State Transport Authority either on its own motion or on an application made to it to call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by the RTA and in which no appeal lies and if it appears to the State Transport Authority that such an order is improper or illegal to pass such order as it deems fit
In our view the Division Bench of the High Court correctly interpreted sections 47 48 57 and 64 and the decisions of this Court in Abdul Mateen s case1 and the case of Jaya Ram Motor Service2
The appeal consequently must fail and has to be dismissed
The Appellants will pay to the respondents the costs of this appeal
RKPS Appeal dismissed
1  2 CA No 95 of 1965 decd
on Oct 27 1967


Summary:
The appellants among others applied to the Regional Transport Authority for permits to operate a direct bus service on
a route in Meerut District UP which had no direct passenger bus service
After hearing the appellants and those who opposed them the Regional Transport Authority was satisfied that there was no sufficient demand for such a direct service and therefore there was no justification for opening the proposed new route
The applications of the appellants and other applicants were therefore rejected
The Appellate Tribunal reversed the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted permits to the three appellants
The respondents therefore filed writ petitions in the High Court for quashing the order of the Tribunal contending that no appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority lay under section 64a of the and that consequently the Tribunal had No jurisdiction to entertain such appeals and grant permits to the appellants
A Single Bench dismissed the petitions but the Division Bench held that no appeal against the order of the Regional transport Authority lay under section 64a and accordingly allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Tribunal s order
On appeal to this Court HELD The appeal must be dismissed
The decisions of this Court clearly lay down that the RTA has first to make a general order as stated in Abdul Mateen s case under section 47 3 as to the number of permits necessary for a new route and he cannot exceed that limit while he is at the next stage when he considers under section 48 read with section 567 as to
who among the applicants should be granted the permit or permits
Such a general order  limiting the number of permits presupposes that he has come to a decision that the new route either proposed by him or by an applicant or applicants is necessary in the public interest
If the order as to the number of permits is a general order  passed under section 473 with which the individual applications are not concerned and is anterior to the stage under section 48 when applications of the individual operators are taken into consideration and therefore is not appealable under section 64 a it must follow a fortiori that the decision as to whether the new route is necessary or not is equally a general order  arrived at either earlier or contemporaneously with the decision as to the number of permits
If the latter order is not appealable it cannot be that the former ie the decision whether the new route is necessary or not is not an equally general order  with which individual applications are not concerned and can appeal against it under section 64 a
However the powers of the RTA in connection with the decision as to whether a proposed route should be opened or not are not un 244 limited and unbridled
The power is subject to the revisional power of the State Government under section 64 A 250 E 251 C Abdul Mateen vs
RK Pandev   Ms Java Ram Motor Service vs
section Rajarathinam CA 95 of 1965 dec
on October 27 1967 R Obliswami Naidu vs The Addl
State Transort Appellate Tribunal Madras CA 1426 of 19 68 dec
on Feb 17 1969 applied