Case: Rattan Lal Gupta &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc Vs. Suraj Bhan &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc

of 1965 D/- 27-10-1967 (SC)*(supra). Baluram v. State Transport Appellate Authority, M.P. S.A. No. 727 of 1965 D/- 22-3-1968 (SC) and R. Obliswami Naidu, (1970) 3 SCR 730 = (AIR 1969 SC 1130 ) (supra) as follows:*Reported in (1967) 2 S.C.W.R. 857"The next question which falls for determination is the point of time when a Regional Transport Authority will under Section 47 (3) of the Act fix the limit of number of stage carriage permits. This Court in Abdul Mateens case, (1963) 3 SCR 523 = (AiR 1963 SC 64 ) said that the general order by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47(3) of the Act in regard to the limit of number of stage carriage permits can be modified only by the Regional Transport Authority when exercising the jurisdiction under Section 47 (3) of the Act. The Regional Transport Authority while acting under Section 43 of the Act in regard to the grant of permits has no jurisdiction and authority to modify any order passed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 (3) of the Act. In other words, the limit fixed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 (3) of the Act cannot be altered by the Regional Transport Authority at the time of grant of permits. It is, therefore, established that the determination of limit of number of permits is to be made before the grant of pemits. That is why Section 48 of the Act is prefaced with the words "subject to the provisions of Section 47 of the Act" meaning thereby that the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits is subject to the determination of the limit of number of permits under Section 47 (3) of the Act. This Court stated the legal position in M/s. Jaya Ram Motor Services case, C.A. No. 95 of 1965 D/- 27-10-1967 (SC)*and said `it is therefore clear that the authority has first to fix the limit and after having done so consider the application or the representations in connection therewith in accordance with the procedure laid down in S.57 of the Act" Again in the case of R. Obliswami Naidu, (1969) 3 SCR 730 = (All 1969 SC 1130) this Court considered the submission in that case as to whether the Regional Transport Authority could decide the number of permits while considering applications for permits. This Court did not accept the submission because such a view could allow an operator who happened to apply first to be in a commending position with the result that the Regional Transport Authority would have no opportunity to choose between competing operators and public interest might suffer. In the same case it is again said that the determination of the number of stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted for the route is to be done first and thereafter applications for permits are to be entertained".*Reported in (1967) 2 S.C.W.R. 8577. As the RTA had not fixed the number of permits for the longer route, we agree with the High Court that the grant of permits for the longer route is invalid.But the legal position in regard to the grant of permits on the shorter route is different. Admittedly, on March 23, 1959, the RTA had fixed the number of permits for this route at 25. As 17 permits had already been granted, the RTA invited applications for eight vacancies on June 13, 1959. So the strength was fixed long before the invitation of applications for permits. It is true that at one stage the RTA had taken the view that the shorter route had merged in the longer route; but later it rectified the mistake and held that the shorter route and the longer route existed separately. We think that the second view of the RTA was correct in the then prevailing circumstances. On July 18, 1958, the RTA resolved that "Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla route be extended to Gangeru-Issupurteel". The extension was made under the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. At no time the RTA has taken a decision for abolishing the shorter route. In its meeting on August 2-4, 1961, the RTA upheld the objection that the shorter route had ceased to exist. The RTA said, "Originally Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla was the name of the route. Subsequently about six miles of kachcha route was considered motorable and then the RTA on 18-7-1958 declared that Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla route be extended upto Issupurteel. After this decision the Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla route could not have separate existence but was merged in the longer route".As already pointed out, a decision to extend the shorter route to a longer distance under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act will not authmatically merge the shorter route in the longer route. For that purpose it was necessary for the RTA to take an independent decision under the Motor Vehicles Act. But no such decision was taken.The RTA realised the mistake and rectified it in its meeting on May 6-8, 1965. The RTA then decided:"We have considered the entire matter carefully and have perused all earlier resolution of the RTA. We are of the opinion that Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla (the shorter route) still exists with a strength of 25 stage carriages and that the shorter route and the longer route are separate routes. Even after the approval of the longer route by the STA, the RTA... had offered permits to displaced operators on the shorter route".We think that this resolution states the correct position.8. It may be mentioned at this place that in the August meeting the RTA reduced the strength of shorter route from 25 to 9. That could not be done. In the result, there would remain eight vacancies on the shorter route for which the RTA had already invited applications. So the RTA could validly grant eight permits to the appellants in the third group. The STA rightly affirmed this decision of the RTA. The High Court, in our view, was not right in quashing the grant of permits to the appellants in the third group.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. As the RTA had not fixed the number of permits for the longer route, we agree with the High Court that the grant of permits for the longer route is invalid.But the legal position in regard to the grant of permits on the shorter route is different. Admittedly, on March 23, 1959, the RTA had fixed the number of permits for this route at 25. As 17 permits had already been granted, the RTA invited applications for eight vacancies on June 13, 1959. So the strength was fixed long before the invitation of applications for permits. It is true that at one stage the RTA had taken the view that the shorter route had merged in the longer route; but later it rectified the mistake and held that the shorter route and the longer route existed separately. We think that the second view of the RTA was correct in the then prevailing circumstances. On July 18, 1958, the RTA resolved that "Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla route be extended to Gangeru-Issupurteel". The extension was made under the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. At no time the RTA has taken a decision for abolishing the shorter route. In its meeting on August 2-4, 1961, the RTA upheld the objection that the shorter route had ceased to exist. The RTA said, "Originally Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla was the name of the route. Subsequently about six miles of kachcha route was considered motorable and then the RTA on 18-7-1958 declared that Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla route be extended upto Issupurteel. After this decision the Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla route could not have separate existence but was merged in the longer route".As already pointed out, a decision to extend the shorter route to a longer distance under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act will not authmatically merge the shorter route in the longer route. For that purpose it was necessary for the RTA to take an independent decision under the Motor Vehicles Act. But no such decision was taken.The RTA realised the mistake and rectified it in its meeting on May 6-8, 1965. The RTA thenhave considered the entire matter carefully and have perused all earlier resolution of the RTA. We are of the opinion that Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla (the shorter route) still exists with a strength of 25 stage carriages and that the shorter route and the longer route are separate routes. Even after the approval of the longer route by the STA, the RTA... had offered permits to displaced operators on the shorterthink that this resolution states the correct position.8. It may be mentioned at this place that in the August meeting the RTA reduced the strength of shorter route from 25 to 9. That could not be done. In the result, there would remain eight vacancies on the shorter route for which the RTA had already invited applications. So the RTA could validly grant eight permits to the appellants in the third group. The STA rightly affirmed this decision of the RTA. The High Court, in our view, was not right in quashing the grant of permits to the appellants in the third group.