Case: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mangrulpir J T. Motor Service (P) Ltd., &amp; Ors

3. The respondents are private operators. They held substantive permits on various routes. They applied for renewal of permits which were to expire on different dates between February 28, 1966 and September 30, 1966. The appellant applied for grant of substantive permits in lieu of the renewal applications made by the respondents.4. While those applications were pending before the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur some private operators on different routes made an application under Article 226 of the constitution challenging the validity of the direction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to the Regional Transport Authority to allow the State Transport Corporation an applicant for the grant of permit to furnish complete information in respect of Columns 10, 14 and 15 on the prescribed form of their application for grant of permit. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by judgment and order, dated October 5, 1967, quashed the order of the Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal by holding that the application filed by the State Transport Corporation in that case was defective and the Appellate committee had no jurisdiction to give the State Transport Corporation a fresh opportunity to furnish additional particulars. An appeal was preferred from the judgment of the High Court to this Court being Civil Appeal No. 1297 of 1968, Maharashtra State Road State Transport Corporation v. Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service and Others. (1969 (2) SCC 746   : (1970) 2 SCR 319  ) This Court on September 10, 1969, held that the Regional Transport Authority would be acting within its jurisdiction in calling upon an applicant to give more complete details and to give an opportunity to the other parties to state their objections.5. During the pendency of the appeal in the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service (supra), the respondents except respondent No. 4 moved the High Court by Writ Petitions in the year 1969 for hearing of their applications for grant of permit. Those Writ Petitions were disposed of by the High Court by consent order, dated March 20, 1969, by which it was agreed that till the decision of this Court in Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service (supra), the renewal applications of the respondents and the applications of the appellant in lieu of renewal would be postponed for consideration.6. After the decision of this Court in Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service (supra), the Regional Transport Authority held a meeting on October 28, 1969, to consider the applications. The appellant at the meeting sought permission to file additional information in the light of the above decision of this Court. The Regional Transport Authority adjourned the proceeding till November 27, 1969. At the meeting held on November 27, 1969, respondent No. 6 contended that the Regional Transport Authority must, before proceeding to consider that application, fix the limit of the number of permits under Section 47(3) of the Act. This step was to be taken before consideration of the applications for the grant of permit. The Regional Transport Authority postponed the consideration of the applications and fixed the next meeting of December 12, 1969, so that it would comply be held for want of quorum and next meeting was fixed for January 8, 1970.7. The appellant meanwhile by a letter, dated December 29, 1969, addressed to the Regional Transport Authority gave additional information in respect of columns 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the prescribed form and called upon the Regional Transport Authority to publish the said information to enable the contending or competing operator to file objections. The appellant gave up-to-date information in order to enable the Regional Transport Authority to judge the respective merits of the applicants which, according to he appellant, could not be done on the basis of information furnished in the application filed in the year 1966. The appellant simultaneously furnished copies of the additional information to the respondents who were the private operators.8. At the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on March 21, 1970, the appellant requested the Regional Transport Authority for publication of the additional information. The Regional Transport Authority acceded to the request and directed the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to publish additional information. Some of the respondents who had initially objected to the receipt and publication of additional information ultimately withdrew the objections.9. At about the time of the publication of the information one of the respondents applied to the High Court for an order that the Regional Transport Authority was unduly delaying consideration of the applications on merits. The High Court by an order, dated April 30, 1970, directed the Regional Transport Authority to commences consideration of the applications as expeditiously as possible and within two months from the date of the order. The High Court further observed that the applications for the grant of permits were ripe for hearing and it was not the stage at all for publishing any information which the appellant might have lodged with the Regional Transport Authority. The High Court took the view that the Regional Transport Authority might call for additional information but it was not the case there because the appellant of its own sent additional information and it amounted to an amendment of their application which was not permissible under the Act and also in view of the decision of this Court in Babu Goverdhan Motor Service case (supra).10. The Regional Transport Authority held the meeting on July 29, 1970, and all the applications were placed for consideration on merit. At that meeting a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the appellant on the basis of an application filed on July 23, 1970, with the Regional Transport Authority to the effect that in view of the unusually long time which had elapsed since the making of the applications in the year 1965-66 for the grant of permits it had become necessary to call for and consider up-to-date information about all the applicants. The Regional Transport Authority directed all the applicants to file additional information relating to matters covered by Columns 10 to 16 and 19 of the prescribed form of the application by August 21, 1970, and directed their publication and invitation of objections thereon.11. All the applicants including the respondents tendered additional up-to-date information about their operations in terms of the order of the Regional Transport Authority. Additional information was published. Objections thereto were received. The Regional Transport Authority posted all the applications for consideration on merit at a meeting due to be held on November 26, 1970.12. The respondents meanwhile moved the High Court for an order the Regional Transport Authority to forbear from taking into account up-to-date information while judging the merits of the contending operation and to enjoin the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application only on the basis of the information originally filed in the year 1965-66, and not on the basis of any up-to-date information. The High Court by judgment and order, dated November 20, 1970, directed the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of all the applications at the meeting on November 26, 1970, and not to postpone consideration and disposal of the applications on any ground whatsoever. This is the judgment out of which the present appeal arises.

Court's reasoning:
19. In deciding the question of power of the Regional Transport Authority to call for further information it has to be borne in mind that the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for permit, have regard among other matters to the interest of the public generally, the advantages to the public of the services to be provided, the adequacy or other passenger transport services, the operation by the applicant of other transport services including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending, the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service. Therefore in considering public interest if the Regional Transport Authority would find that the answers furnished by any applicant are not full and complete, it will be constricting the exercise of power of the Regional Transport Authority by denying it authority to ask for additional information for full and detailed consideration of the applications in the interest of the public. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how the Regional Transport Authority will act or what the limitations of their powers will be. It is a statutory body. It is to exercise statutory powers in the public interest. Such public interest would have to be considered with regard to particular matters enumerated in Section 47 of the Act and the particulars of an application are to be judged with reference to Sections 46 and 47 in particular of the Act. Reference may also be made to Rule 68(6) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules which enables the State or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case be, to require an applicant to appear before it and to withhold the consideration of the application for the permit until the applicant has so appeared in person if so required or by any recognised agent if so permitted, and until the applicant has furnished such information as may be required by the Transport Authority in connection with the application". The words "in connection with the applicant" are important. These words indicate that the Regional Transport Authority will have power to ask for furtherSection 57 of the Act the application is to be published in order to enable parties to submit representation in connection therewith. Publication therefore is a statutory obligation. In view of the fact that information was asked for with regard to specific columns of the application it cannot be denied that the information was in connection with application. It will therefore be within the competence of the Regional Transport Authority under Section 57 of the Act to publish the application of the substance thereof in order to enable the persons affected thereby to send the representations to the Regional Transport Authority.21. The Regional Transport Authority is entrusted by the statute to consider the applications for the grant of permit. Application are on a printed form. It will be in the interest of the applicants to furnish all information. If however for any reason, the Regional Transport Authority will require further information, it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether the power is exercised bona fide, and whether the discretion that is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority is exercised properly and judiciously. In the absence of the Regional Transport Authority acting under any corrupt motive or mala fide for any oblique purpose the discretion which is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority should not be undermined and restricted.22. The High Court was in error on the second question in holding that the Regional Transport Authority would have to consider the respective qualifications of the applicants as on the date of their application and not as on the date of the actual consideration by the Regional Transport Authority of the applications for the grant of permit. Normally, the Regional Transport Authority would consider the applications for the grant of permits within a short time of the submission of the applications. If for any reason, a long time elapses as in the present appeal, the Regional Transport Authority will have to consider the various matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 46 of the Act at the time of consideration of the applications for the grant of permits.If the Regional Transport Authority will have at the date of the consideration of the grant of permit information which may disentitle the applicant by reason of conviction, insolvency, loss of fleet, lack of facilities, or any subsequent event of importance as would affect the grant of permit to an applicant, it would be in fulfilment of the objects and purposes of the Act and advancement of public interest to ensure that the permit is grant to the most meritorious applicant. Therefore it is all the more necessary to publish additional information in order to have the fullest material on record for proper assessment and evaluation of the merits and demerits.25. The High Court was wrong in directing the Regional Transport Authority to proceed on the basis of applications submitted in the year 1965-66.