Case: Lakshmi Narain Agarwal Vs. State Transport Authority, U.P. &amp; Anr

any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."5. It would be noticed that sub-sec (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 47 (1). The learned counsel contends that the expression "matter mentioned in subsection (1) occurring in sub-section (3) refers back not only to matters mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (f) to sub-section (1) in S. 47 but also the right of representation mentioned in sub-section (1). We are unable to accept this line of reasoning as being sound. Even under Section 47 (1), the Regional Transport Authority can only have regard to the matters mentioned in sub-clauses (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 47 (1). This is not to say that the matters mentioned in subclauses (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.6. This Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey, (1963) 3 SCR 523 = (AIR 1963 SC 64 ) held that:"where a limit has been fixed under Section 47 (3) 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 permit 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 47 (3)".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 Sec. 47(3).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 47 (3) is an order within Section 64-A because, as held by this Court in (l963) 3 SCR 523 = (AIR 1963 SC 64 ), it binds the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority in dealing with applications under Sec 48 read with Section 57 of the Act.7. Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, the learned counsel for the State, contends 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 l36 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 47 (3), 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 47 (3) 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 47 (3) 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 47 (3) existing operators would not be entitled to be heard by the Regional Transport Authority. But assuming that it is so, this does not affect the right of revision conferred by S. 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 47 (3) is made.8. The learned counsel for the respondent further contends that a decision under Section 47 (3) 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 47 (3).9. 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 47 (3) 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 Sec. 47 (3) was passed as long ago as November 17 1962. 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.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]We are unable to accept this line of reasoning as being sound. Even under Section 47 (1), the Regional Transport Authority can only have regard to the matters mentioned in sub-clauses (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 47 (1). This is not to say that the matters mentioned in subclauses (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 thewe 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 47 (3) is an order within Section 64-A because, as held by this Court in (l963) 3 SCR 523  = (AIR 1963 SC 64 ), it binds the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority in dealing with applications under Sec 48 read with Section 57We are unable to say that no existing operator can be aggrieved by an order made under Section 47 (3), 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 47 (3) 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 47 (3) 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 47 (3) existing operators would not be entitled to be heard by the Regional Transport Authority. But assuming that it is so, this does not affect the right of revision conferred by S. 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 47 (3) isassuming 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 47what Mr. Desai contends is correct, but here the facts are that the order under Sec. 47 (3) was passed as long ago as November 17 1962. 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.