Case: Abdui, Gafoor Vs. State Of Mysore

1. The petitioner, who is the proprietor of the Shaheen Motor Service, used to ply a motor bus for hire on the route Archalli to Saravanabelgola in Hassan District in the State of Mysore. A scheme under S. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 having been published by the Mysore Transport Undertaking, the petitioner as one of the persons affected thereby filed objections to the scheme before the State Government under S. 68-D (1) of the Act. The State Government, however, after considering the objections and hearing the petitioner approved the scheme, subject to a slight modification with which we are not concerned. This approval was given on December 22, 1959. In pursuance of this approved scheme the State Transport Undertaking-the 2nd respondent before us - made applications for permits but before the Regional Transport Authority could issue such permits the present petition was filed praying, in the first place, for a writ of certiorari to quash the scheme and some consequential directions, and secondly for a writ of "prohibition" to the Regional Transport Authority, Hassan District, who is the third respondent before us "to refrain from dealing with the applications for permit made by the 2nd respondent unless and until they are duly published and notice thereof is given to the petitioner and he is allowed to make his representation thereon regarding their compliance or otherwise with the conditions of S. 68-F (1) of the Chapter IV-A. After learned counsel for the petitioner had been heard, this Court by its order dated March 21, 1961, granted leave to the petitioner to amend the writ petition so as to confine it to the second prayer only and directed a rule to issue only in respect of this second prayer.

Reasoning:
This argument, in our opinion, is fallacious. All that S. 68-B pre-supposes is that there are some provisions in Chapter IV which may apply to matters under Chapter IV-A; on that assumption it proceeds to say that if on a matter to which provisions of Chapter IV would prima facie apply there is a provision in Chapter IV-A also which appears applicable the provision in Chapter IV-A will prevail to the extent of its inconsistency with the corresponding provision in Chapter IV. As to what provisions in Chapter IV will apply or not S. 68-B says nothing and provides no guidance either expressly or byappears clear to us that the provisions of S. 57(3) have nothing to do with these matters dealt with by S. 68-F (1).Section 57(3) lays on the Regional Transport Authority certain duties when it considers an application for a permit. These conditions are (1) to make the application available for inspection at the office of the Authority, (2) to publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date and the time and place at which the application and any representations, received will be considered. Under S. 68-F (1) as already mentioned the Regional Transport Authority has no option to refuse the grant of the permit provided it has been made in pursuance of the approved scheme and in the manner mentioned in Chap. IV. The duty of the Regional Transport Authority on receipt of the application from the State Transport Undertaking for a permit is therefore to examine the application for itself to see whether it is in pursuance of an approved scheme and secondly whether it has been made in the manner laid down in Chapter IV. This is a duty which the Regional Transport Authority has to perform for itself and there is no question of its asking for assistance from the public or existing permit holders for Transport Services on the route. Neither the public in general nor the permit holder has any part to play in this matter.6. The provisions of S. 57(3) for making the application made under Chapter IV, available for inspection, for publishing the application or a substance thereof with a notice of the date by which the representations may be submitted and the date, time and place when the representations will be considered are required to enable the Regional Transport Authority to come to a correct conclusion as to whether the application should be granted or not. An application not made in the manner laid down in Chapter IV will not be considered by the Regional Transport Authority at all. But the mere fact that it has been made in the proper manner will not entitle the applicant to a permit. It is the duty of the Regional Transport Authority to decide on a consideration of all relevant matters whether the application should be allowed. Other operators and even the public have a legal right to make representations to persuade the Authority not to grant the permit on the merits of the case. It is for this reason that there was necessity to make the provisions in sub-sec. (3) of S. 57 so that the Regional Transport Authority may receive every assistance in coming to a proper conclusion. When, however, a scheme prepared and published under S. 68-C had been approved and an application has been made in pursuance of the scheme and in the proper manner as specified in Chapter IV nothing more remains to be decided by the Regional Transport Authority. The nature of the matter dealt with under S. 68-F (1) is thus such as does not and cannot attract any of the provisions of S. 57(3).7. It may be mentioned here that in Srinivasa Reddy v. State of Mysore, 1960-2 SCR130 : (AIR 1960 SC 350 ) a question was raised whether S. 57(3) applied or not to an application made under S. 68-F (1). The Court considered it unnecessary then to go into the matter as on the facts of that case it was found that the application had not been made in the manner provided in Chapter IV and was actually in breach of S. 57(2) of the Act and so no permit could be issued on such an application. The provision in S. 57(2) which was applicable to applications under S. 68-F is that an application for a permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect or if the Regional Transport Authority appoints dates for the receipt of such applications, on such dates. In that case the Court held that this provision in S. 57(2) is in reality a manner of making the application and consequently it applied to applications made under S. 68-F (1). The provisions of S. 57(3) cannot however be said to have anything to do with the manner of making the application and the nature of the matter dealt with under S. 68-F (1) is such that provisions of S. 57(3) are not attracted.It appears to us that when deciding what action to take under S. 68-F (2) the authority is tied down by the terms and conditions of the approved scheme and his duty is merely to do what is necessary to give effect to the provisions of the scheme. The refusal to entertain applications for renewal of permits or cancellation of permits or modification of terms of existing permits really flow from the scheme. The duty is, therefore, merely mechanical; and it will be incorrect to say that there is in these matters any lis between the existing operators and the State Transport Undertaking which is to be decided by the Regional Transport Authority. There is no justification therefore for saying that when taking action under S. 68-F (2) the Regional Transport Authority is exercising a quasi-judicial function. Apart from this it has to be pointed out that action under S. 68-F (2) is really independent of the issue of the permits under S. 68-F (1). Once the scheme has been approved, action under S. 68-F (1) flows from it and at the same time action under S. 68-F (2) flows from the same scheme The argument that the Regional Transport Authority should be held to be exercising quasi-judicial function in dealing with applications for permits under S. 68-F (1) because of the action it may take under S. 68-F (2), therefore,48(3) authorises the Regional Transport Authority if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, to attach to the permit any of the conditions specified in the sub-section. It has to be noticed that S. 68-F (1) does not speak of the "grant" of a permit but provides that the Regional Transport Authority shall "issue" a permit. In any case, if the Regional Transport Authority has to decide what conditions to attach to such a permit, it is not possible to say that it is then exercising a quasi-judicial function. For, in deciding that matter the Regional Transport Authority is to have regard to the interests of the public but there is no question because of that, of any lis between the State Transport Undertaking on the one hand and the public on the other.11. In our opinion, the Regional Transport Authority acts wholly in a ministerial capacity while dealing with an application of the State Transport Undertaking under S. 68-F (1). The fact that on other occasions and in other matters the Regional Transport Authority has quasi-judicial functions to perform cannot make its function under S. 68-F (1) a quasi-judicial function.12. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioners contention that no permit can be granted to the State Transport Undertaking until the applications for permit have been duly published and notices have been given to the petitioner of these applications is unsound. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.