Appeal No 636 of 1967
Appeal by special leave from the judgment all order dated November 11
1966 of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No 226 of 1963
section T Desai J P Goyal D N Jha and G section the appellant
Sarjoo Prashad and O P Rana for the respondents
Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated November 11 1966 of the Division Bench of tile Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by tile appellant seeking to quash tile order of the State Transport Authority
dated March 2021
The State Transport Authority had by this order rejected the appellant s revision petition against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority oil the ground that a mere decision of the Regional Transport Authority limiting the number of stage carriages under section 473 of the IV of 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act could not form the subject matter of a revision application 
It was of the view that when the Regional Transport Authority actually proceeds to fill Lip the vacancies which it has decided to create then the persons whose interests would be adversely affected would have a right of representation before the Regional Transport Authority and in the case of their representation being rejected by the Regional Transport Authority the will have a right of appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
 The High Court was of the view that an existing operator had no say in the matter of determination of the strength on a route under sub section
3 of section 47 and it was in the discretion of the Regional Transport Authority to determine the strength on a route after considering various matters enumerated in cls
a to f of sub section
1 of section 47
The High Court further observed that is the order passed under section 473 to revise which the appellant had filed a revision tinder section 64 A was a good order and did not call for any interference it did not consider it necessary to decide whether a revision lay against such an order under section 64 A of the Act
The learned counsel for the appellant Mr section T Desai con tends that an order under section 473 of the Act whether it is quasijudicial or administrative does affect the existing operators on the route and their representations must be considered by the Regional Transport Authority before passing an order tinder section 473
He further submits that a revision lay under section 64 A of the Act and the same should not have been dismissed on the ground that no revision lay
637 The relevant statutory provisions are section 47 and section 64 A of the Act and read thus 47
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 following matters namely a the interests of the public generally  b the advantages to the public of the set vice 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 passengers 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 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 co operative 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
2 A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from any time table furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which vehicles may be driven are likely to be contravened 638 provided that before such refusal an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to amend the time table so as to conform to the said provisions
3 A Regional Transport Authority may having regard to the matters mentioned in sub section 1 limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region 64 A Revision The State Transport Authority may either on its own motion or on an application made to it call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by a Regional Transport Authority and in which no appeal lies and if it appears to the State Transport Authority that the order made by the Regional Transport Authority is improper or illegal the State Transport Authority may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit Provided that the State Transport Authority shall not entertain any application from a person aggrieved by an order of a Regional Transport Authority unless the application is made within thirty days from the date of the order Provided further that the State Transport Authority shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard
 It would be noticed that sub section
3 of section 47 does not expressly say whether any representations can be made by persons already providing transport facilities or by associations representing persons interested in the provision of the transport facilities or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction the route or area lies
This is expressly mentioned in section 471
The learned counsel contends that the expression matters mentioned in sub section 1 occurring in sub section 3 refers back not only to matters mentioned in sub cls
a to f to sub section
1 in section 47 but also the right of representation mentioned in sub section
We are unable to accept this line of reasoning as being sound
Even under section 471 the Regional Transport Authority can only have regard to the matters mentioned in sub cls
a to f and those matters may be brought to the notice of the Regional Transport Authority by representations
It could not have been the intention that representations would contain matters which the Regional Transport Authority could not take into consideration under section 471
This is not to say that the matters mentioned in 639 sub cls
a to f are exhaustive but this point does not arise and we need not say anything as to this
Therefore this line of reasoning does not assist the appellant
This Court in Abdul Mateen vs Ram Kailash Pandey1 held that where a limit has been fixed under section 473 by the Regional Transport Authority and thereafter the said authority proceeds to consider applications for permits under section 48 read with section 57 the Regional Transport Authority must confine the number of permits issued by it to those limits and on an appeal or revision by an aggrieved person the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority must equally be confined to the issue of permits within the limits fixed under section 473
But this Court did not feel it necessary to decide whether under section 64 A inserted by Motor Vehicles Amendment Act No 100 of 1956 it was open to the State Transport Authority to vary a general order passed under section 473
If we look at the section it would be noticed that section 64 A is very wide in terms the only condition necessary for filing a revision is that it should be against an order made by the Regional Transport Authority and against which no appeal lies
The word order is wide and there is no doubt that an order made under section 473 is an order within section 64 A because as held by this Court in Abdul Mateen vs Ram Kailash Pandey 1 it binds the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority in dealing with applications under section 48
read with section 57 of the Act
Mr Sarjoo Prasad the learned counsel for the State con tends that no revision lies at the instance of an existing operator because he cannot be called an aggrieved person and secondly that even if a revision lies the appellant is not entitled to any relief on the facts of this case under article 136 of the Constitution because the appellant never approached the Regional Transport Authority in the first instance
We are unable to say that no existing operator can be aggrieved by an order made under section 473 increasing or decreasing the number of stage carriages it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
In a particular case it may be to his advantage and he then would not file a revision against it but if he files a revision when an order made under section 473 is prejudicial to his interests there is no ground for denying him the right to approach the revisional authority and seeking its order
An order under section 473 affects the future working on a route and we are of the view that such an order would have repercussion on the working of the existing operators whether for their good or not
The High Court as stated above was of the view that at the stage of section 473 existing operators would not be entitled to be heard by the Regional 1  640 Transport Authority
But assuming that it is so this does no affect the right of revision conferred by section 64 A
We need not in this case decide whether it is implied that existing operators would be entitled to be heard by the Regional Transport Authority before an order under section 473 is made
The learned counsel for the respondent further contends that a decision under section 473 is a tentative decision and can be revised
But assuming that it can be revised by the Regional Transport Authority till the order is in operation it is binding on everybody and if a revision can be filed against the order under section 64 A the aggrieved operator cannot be compelled to approach the Regional Transport Authority first to revise its order This argument in a way concedes that an operator can be a person aggrieved by an order under section 473
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that if it is held that a revision lies under section 64 A against an order passed under section 473 of the Act the State Transport Authority should be directed to hear the revision on merits
He says that the High Court had no right to go into the merits of the order itself
Ordinarily what Mr Desai contends is correct but here the facts are that the order under section 473 was passed as long ago as November
During the last five years demand for stage carriages on this route would have in the ordinary course increased by now
and further it has not been shown that the Regional Transport Authority has made any glaring mistake
For the aforesaid reasons
in exercising our discretion under article 136 of the Constitution we consider that we should not interfere with the order passed by the High Court
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed
Under the circumstances there will be no order as to costs
VPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Regional Transport Authority by an order under section 473 of the  fixed the number of stage carriages by increasing their number on a particular route
The appellant an existing operator filed a revision against that order to the State Transport Authority under section 64A but the State Transport Authority held that a revision did not lie
The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court dismissed it holding that 1 at the stage of section 473 existing operators were not entitled to be heard by the Regional Transport Authority and 2 since the order of the Regional Transport Authority was good on merits it was not necessary to decide whether a revision lay to the State Transport Authority
In appeal to this Court HELD 1 Unlike section 471 section 473 does not say expressly that representations could be made by existing operators and others
The expression in section 473 that the Regional Transport Authority may having regard to the matters mentioned in sub section
1  only means that the Authority shall have regard to the matters mentioned in sub cls
a to f of section 471 and has nothing to do the right of making representations
638F H 2 But whether or not an existing operator has an implied right to be heard before an order under section 473 is made he can be aggrieved by an order made under that section increasing or decreasing the number of stage carriages depending on the circumstances of the case and has therefore a right of revision under section 64A the only condition for filing a revision being that it should be against an order made by the Regional Transport Authority against which no appeal lies
639C D F H Abdul Mateen vs Ram Kailash Pandey   re ferred to
3 Since a revision could be filed under section 64A against the order under section 473 the aggrieved operator need not approach the Regional Transport Authority first to review its order
640B C 4 The High Court should have directed the State Transport Authority to dispose of on merits the revision petition against the order under section 473 and not gone into its merits itself but in view of the time that lapsed since the order was passed five years during which the demand for stage carriages must have increased this Court would not interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction under article 136
640C E 636