Case: Jeewan Nath Wahal &amp; Ors Vs. Sheikh Mahfooz Jan &amp; Ors

2. 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 Bulandshahar 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 R. T. A. 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 R. T. A., following 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.3. These applications came up for consideration in the meeting held before the R. T. A. on July 28, 1965, when Item 3 of the Agenda for that meeting waspronounce decision regarding recognition and classification of Meerut to Dankaur via Hapur-Gulsothi-Sikandarabad route and grant of permitsis apparent that Item 3 involved two questions for determination of the R.T.A.,; (a) whether the route proposed by the appellants and other 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 R.T.A. 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 R.T.A. 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 R.T.A. lay under Section 64 (a), and that consequently, 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 R.T.A. lay under S. 64(a), and accordingly, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Tribunals order. This appeal is directed against this order.

Reasoning:
7. The decisions referred to above, in our opinion, clearly lay down that the R. T. A. has first to make "a general order" as stated in Abdul Mateens case, 1963-3 SCR 523  = (AIR 1963 SC 64 ) (supra) 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 57 as to who amongst 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 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 routes should be opened. If the order as to the number of permits is a "general order" passed under S. 47 (3), in respect of which the individual applicants are not concerned with and is anterior to the stage under S. 48 when applications of the individual operators are taken into consideration, and therefore, not appealable under S. 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, i.e., 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 S. 64 (a).8. On this view, it would at first sight appear as if the R. T. A. 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 R. T. A. 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.