Case: M/s. Gajendra Transport Private Limited Vs. Anamallias Bus Transport Private Limited &amp; Another

1. This appeal, brought by special leave, relates to grant of a stage carriage permit for the route Pollachi to Tiruppur viaam in Coimbatore District. It appears that a traffic survey had been conducted during the period from 1st June, 1966 to 15th July, 1966 on various routes in Coimbatore District and it was found as a result of this traffic survey that the load on the route Pollachi to Tiruppur via Kamanaickenpalayam andwas heavy and it wastherefore, decided to introduce one more bus on this route. The Regional Transport Authority accordingly issued a notification under Section 57,(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 inviting applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit for one additional bus on this route. There wereapplications received in response to this invitation. The Regional Transport Authority considered these applications as also the representations received in connection with them and by an order dated 4th November,granted a stage carriage permit to the appellant to ply an additional bus on the route. The first respondent being aggrieved by the refusal of the Regional Transport Authority to grant a stage carriage permit to him preferred an appeal to the Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 64(1) (a) of the Act. At theof the appeal, the first respondent raised, for the first time, a contention that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to proceed with consideration of the applications under Section 48(1) read with Section 57since no prior order limiting the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted on the route was made under Section 47(3). The Tribunal allowed this contention to be raised, though it had not been taken before the Regional Transport Authority, and taking the view that it was well founded, held that no valid order limiting the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted on the route had been made by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47(3) before considering the applications and representations in connection therewith and the order made by the Regional Transport Authority granting stage carriage permit to the appellant was, therefore, without jurisdiction. On this view, the Tribunal by an order dated 11th June, 1968 allowed the appeal of the first respondent and setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting stage carriage permit to the appellant, remitted the matter to the Regional Transport Authority "for being proceeded with in accordance withThe appellant challenged the validity of this order made by the Tribunal by a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madras. The petition came up for admission before aJudge of the Madras High Court who summarily rejected the petition. This led to the filing of at appeal before a Division Bench of the Madras HighThe Division Bench considered various decisions of this Court and held that it was not competent to the Regional Transport Authority to exercise the power to grant stage carriage permit under Section 48(1) read with Section 57(3) without first fixing the limit of the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted on the route under Section 47(3) and since in the present case there was no orderunder Section 47the Regional Transport Authority had no power to grant stage carriage permit under Section 48(1) read with Section 57(3) and the order granting stage carriage permit to the appellant wasly held by the Tribunal. The Division Bench accordingly upheld the order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The appellant thereafter preferredpresent appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.

Court's reasoning:
rs from the order of the Tribunal that according to it the Regional Transport Authority did not fix or revise the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted on the route before taking up the applications for consideration and it was only at theof the applicationsthat he decided the need for an additional bus on the route and that was in breach of the requirement of law. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court also took the view that "there was no orderunder Section 47(3) relevant to theBut this finding that there was no order fixing the limit of the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted on theParagraph 4 of the order of the Tribunal is very illuminating in this connection. Ite facts are that as can be seen at pageof the Regional Transport Authoritys file a traffic survey had been conducted during the period from66 on various bus routes in Coimbatore District, and the load factor on thein question was found to be high and therefore it was proposed to introduce one more bus on this route.were accordingly invited by means of the notification under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of a permit for one busstatement in the order of the Tribunal clearly shows that before the notification under Section 57(2) was issued inviting applications for grant of a stage carriage permit for plying one additional bus on the route, a decision had already been taken by the Regional Transport Authority on the basis of the traffic survey conducted duringperiod from 1st June, 1966 to 15th July, 1966that one additional bus shouldintroduced on the route. It is true that a formal order was not passed by the Regional Transport Authority revising the limit of the number of stageby the addition of one more bus on the route, but, as pointed out by this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State Transport Appellate1 SCR 474  an orderunder Section 47(3) of the Actis not a matter of mere form but ofThe decision of the Regional Transport Authority to introduce one more bus on the route must be regarded aser Section 47(3). It would also be reasonable to hold on the strength of the decision in1 SCR 474  that since the notificationunder Section 57(2) was issued by the Regional Transport Authority inviting applications for grant of stage carriage permit for an additional bus on the route, it represented a determination of the Regional Transport Authority as to the limit ofof stage carriages on the route3). There was, thus, clearly a valid order(3) fixing the limit of the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted on the routebefore the applications were taken up for consideration and the order was made granting stage carriagepermit to the, not right in setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that there was no valid order(3) and the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Madras High Court were also in error in confirming the order made by the Tribunal.