Appeal No 874 of 1975
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 5 3 75 of the Rajasthan High Court in DB Civil Appeal No 18 of 1975
MC Bhandare SM Jain SK Jain and Mohd Fasiuddin for the Appellant
PC Bhartari for Respondent No 3
KJ John for Respondent No 4
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI J
The appellant and the respondents 3 and 4 were the former existing stage carriage operators of Jaipur Sainthal route which was nationalised on January 25 1973
All of them applied for the grant of non temporary stage carriage permits of Jaipur Padampura route as alterna tive route permits
The Regional Transport Authority Jaipur briefly the RTA by it s order of July 22 1974 granted nontemporary permits to the appellant and respondent No 4 and rejected the application of respondent No 3
That led to an appeal to the State Transport AppeLlate Tribunal at Jaipur Rajasthan by respondent 460 No 3
The notice of appeal was served upon the appellant but since he did not appear the appeal was heard ex parte and by its order dated December 17 1974 the State Trans port Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the RTA and granted the permit in favour of respondent No 3
The appellant filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Rajasthan High Court and the learned single Judge by a rather long speaking order dismissed the same summarily
A further appeal by the appellant to the Division Bench met with the same fate
The High Court also refused to grant certificate to appeal to this Court
Hence this appeal by special leave
Mr Bhandare the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal briefly the Tribunal is invalid inas much as the appeal was heard in the absence of a proper notice of appeal as required under the law
He draws our attention to rule 108c of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules
1951 which reads as follows  Upon receipt of an appeal preferred in accordance with sub rule b the Appellate Tribunal may appoint a date time and place for hearing of the Appeal giving the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority as the case may be and the appellant
not less than thirty days notice thereof
Although the above rule does not contain any provision for service of notice on the respondent it is however implic it that a notice similar to one intended under the rule for service on the appellant must also be served on the respondent
Mr Bhandare could not dispute the factual service of notice on the appellant in view of the Tribunal s finding
He however submits that the notice which was served on the appellant did not recite the place for the hearing of the appeal although the date and time were noted therein
It is true that the Tribunal could not in law hear the appeal without intimating the respondent
about the date time and place for hearing of the appeal but since the appellant had received the notice from the Tribunal indicat ing the date and time for hearing of the appeal the omis sion in the notice to describe the place where the appeal is to be heard is not fatal enough to make the appeal proceed ing invalid before the Tribunal
The appellant admittedly is a resident of Jaipur where also the office of the Tribu nal is situated
He was also a stage carriage permit holder and not a stranger to the office of the Transport Authori ties
Besides although the notice of the appeal fixed the date of hearing on October 8 1974 the appeal was adjourned on that day to October 21 1974 and again to November 12 1974 and it was only on December 12 1974 that the final hearing of the appeal took place
It is therefore clear that the appellant was duly notified about the hearing of the appeal and in view of the fact that he did not make any effort to be present during this entire period when the appeal was pending he could not be allowed to take advan tage of the mere omission of the place of hearing of the appeal in the notice
Besides the RTA was present as provided for under section 641 of the briefly the Act before the Tribunal to defend its own order
The submission of the appellant is therefore of no avail
461 Mr Bhandare next submits that the Tribunal failed to comply with section 47 of the Act and did not at all consid er the relevant matters a to f provided therein
It is well settled that in considering an application for a stage carriage permit the RTA shall have regard to the matters described in section 47
Before we go to consider about the submission of the learned counsel with reference to the order of the Tribunal it is manifest on the face of the order of the RTA that Authority even at the first in stance did not make any reference to the relevant consider ations under section 47 of the Act
The only reason given by the RTA in rejecting the application of respondent No 3 is that there is no other vacancy
There is nothing to show that the case of respondent No 3 was at all considered by the RTA on merits
The Tribunal on the other hand has considered various aspects of the matter although without a reference to section 47 as such
For example the condition of the vehicles of the two parties was duly considered by the Tribunal
The fact that the respondent 3 had a later model of vehicle being 1965 model whereas the appellant had only a 1962 model vehicle tilted the balance in favour of the respondent No 3
This aspect can well arise under clauses a and b of section 47
We are unable to say that the relevant considerations under section 47 on the facts and circumstances of the grant of the particular permit were not kept in view by the Tribunal in considering the appeal
The Tribunal and the learned single Judge duly considered the whole matter and the Division Bench was justified in summarily rejecting the special appeal
The second submission of the learned counsel also fails
In the result the appeal is dismissed but we will make no order as to costs
PHP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant and respondents No 3 and 4 applied for the grant of nontemporary stage carriage permits
The Regional Transport Authority granted the permits to the appellant and respondent No 4 and rejected the application of respondent No 3
Respondent No 3 filed an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
The notice of appeal was served upon the appellant where the date and time were mentioned but the place was not mentioned
Since the appellant did not appear the appeal was heard ex parte
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Transport Authority and granted the permit in favour of respondent No 3
A writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed summarily by the learned Single Judge by a long speaking order
A Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant
In an appeal by Special Leave the appellant contended 1
The notice as required by rule 108c of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules 1951 served on the appellant was not proper notice since it did not mention the place of the hearing of the appeal
The Tribunal did not consider the relevant matters as mentioned in section 47a to f
HELD 1
The omission to mention the place is not fatal
The appellant is a resident of Jaipur where also the office of the Tribunal is situated
He was a Stage Carriage permit holder and not a stranger to the Transport authorities
In fact hearing of the appeal was adjourned twice even after the date mentioned in the notice
460 F 2
The Regional Transport Authority did not make any reference to the relevant considerations under section 47 of the Act
The Tribunal on the other hand has considered various aspects of the matter as required by section 47 although without a reference to that section
The Tribunal and the learned Single Judge duly considered the whole matter and the Division Bench was justified in summarily rejecting the special appeal
461 B D