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

The state Transport Authority had by this order rejected the appellants revision petition against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that a mere decision of the Regional Transport Authority limiting the number of stage carriages under Section 47 (3) ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) hereinafter referred to as the Act could not form the subject matter of a revision application. It was of the view that "when the Regional Transport Authority actually proceeds to fill up the vacancies which it has decided to create then the persons whose interests would be adversely affected, would have a right of representation before the Regional Transport Authority, and in the case of their representation being rejected by the Regional Transport Authority they will have a right of appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal."2. The High Court was of the view that an existing operator had no say in the matter of determination of the strength on a route under Sub-section (3) of section 47 and it was in the discretion of the Regional Transport Authority to determine the strength on a route, after considering various matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) of section 47. The High Court further observed that as the order passed under Section 47 (3), to revise which the appellant had filed a revision under section 64-A, was a good order and did not call for any interference, it did not consider it necessary to decide whether a revision lay against such an order under Section 64-A of the Act.

Reasoning: 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.