Case: R. Obliswami Naidu Vs. Addl. State Transport Appellate Tribunal,Madras &amp; Ors

On August 8, 1966 the appellant applied to the R. T. A., Coimbatore for a permit to ply a stage carriage on the route Bhavani to Vellithiruppur. That was entirely a new route. No stage carriage was plying on that route at that time. The R. T. A. published that application under Section 57 (3) of the Act. Respondents Nos. 2-3 and others made representations against that application contending that there was no need to grant a stage carriage permit for that route. The R. T. A. overruled their objection and granted the permit asked for on October 9, 1967. As against the order of the R. T. A. some of the objectors went up in appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. The Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by its order of February 22, 1968 holding that the procedure adopted by the R. T. A. was not in accordance with law inasmuch as it had failed to determine the question of the need for a service in that route before entertaining the application for a stage carriage permit. The Tribunal held that the procedure adopted by the R. T. A. contravened Section 47 (3) of the Act. The appellant challenged that order before the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 908 of 1968. The High Court dismissed that application. Hence this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
7. We are unable to accept this contention. That sub-section merely permits representations to be made in respect of the application published. Such representations cannot take the form of competing applications. It is difficult to accept the contention that the word "representations" in Section 57 (3) includes applications for the route.That apart if we accept Mr. Narasarajus contention then the whole thing will become unworkable. If at the time of making his representation an operator can also make an application for a stage carriage permit for that route, that application again will have to be published under Section 57 (3) and objections called for. Extending the logic of Mr. Narasarajus argument as we ought to, at the time of making representations to those applications, further applications can be made. This may turn out to be an unending chain.8. On an examination of the relevant provisions of the Act and the purpose behind Sections 47 and 57, we are convinced that before granting a stage carriage permit two independent steps have to be taken. Firstly there should be a determination by the R. T. A. under Section 47 (3), of the number of stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted in that route. Thereafter applications for stay carriage permits in that route should be entertained. The R. T. A. is not competent to grant stage carriage permits for more carriages than fixed under Section 47being so, if an application is refused such refusal is under Section 48 (1) and the appellant who is denied the permit has a right of appeal under Section 64 (1) (a)".