ABDUL REHMAN & Ors. v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & Ors.

Sri J<an1a Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C. Chandra Sekaran and Ors. [1964] 5 SCR 869. Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act emphasises the interest of the travel ling public as the dominc.nt consideration in the gra'Ilt of permits and no order in exercises of powers under 1\rt. 226 or Art. 136 of the Constitution will ordinarfly be passed if the public is likely to suffer. In the instant case : (a) the High Court should not have in exercise of its w1 it jurisdiction interfered i1n a case of this nature particularly when the cancel lation of the appellants' permits was bound to cause inconvenience and hard ship to the travelling public; (b) the route in question ha<l assumed the character of an amalgamated inter-regional route in regard where to the provisions of Section 47(3) of the Act \Vhich are confined in their operation to a region or a specified area or a specified route within a region were not applicable and the need for increasing the number of permits in the interest of public was recog nised by the Regio•.:ial Transport Authority itself in its resolution No. 44(5) passed by it in its meetings held on July 7 to July 10, 1970, which is expressly alluded to in the order dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appell>te Tribunal as also the fact that the, appellants have been operating on the route for quite sometime and do not appear to have indulged in any malpractice. [457 E-H] Mohd. Ibrahiln etc. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras etc. [1971] I S.C.R. 474 followed. [The court in view of ito; decision in this appeal, dismi<;sed the connected special leave petition (Civil) No. 1852/76]. Cil'IL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 1975. Judgment and Order dated Appeal by Special Leave from the 27-8-1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 208 /75. WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No. 1852 of 1976. From the Judgment and Order dated 3-9-1975 of the Allahabad High Court to Special Appeal No. 216/73. S. C. Agarwala, for the appellants. G H A. K. Sen (in CA No. 1276), J. P. Goyal and Ranhir Jain, for Respondents 3-5 and Petitioner in SLP. L. N. Sinha, D. P. Singh and R. K. Jain, for Respondent No. 3 in SLP. The Jndgment of the Conrt was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J-This appeal by 'special leave is directed against the judgment and orde.r dated Augnst 27, 1975 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Jndicatnre at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 208 of 1973 upholding the order dated August 28, 1973 of a Single Judge of that Court whereby he quashed the order dated May • < • . < / .... --·~ r;. J • ABDUL REHMAN V. U.P. TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Jaswant Singh, J.) 455 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting regular A permits in favour of the appellants for amalgamated route known as Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur, Meerut-Bijnor via Mawana-Mee.rut Mawana Khurd-Phalauda, Meerut-Mlasuri-Lawar-Phalauda, Meerut Masuri-Lawar and Khatauli-Phalauda-Mawana-M;akdoompur route. The dispute ils stated in the judgment and order under appeal relates to Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route, the limit of the number B of stage carriage permits whereof was raised from 11 to 15 in 1959. Out of the additional four permits which thus became available for grant, the Regional Transport Authority granted three to the displaced persnns and invited applications to fill up the remaining one vacancy. Jn response to the invitation, the appellants also applied for grant of the stage carriage permits for the said route. While considering the applications and exercising its authority of grant of the permits under C section 48 read with section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the Regional Transport Authority modi- fied the limit of number of the stage carriage permits and increased it from 15 to 20 which it could not do in view of the law settled by this Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey\ 1') and Ors., M/s. Jaya Ram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam and Ors.('), Baluram v. The State Transport Appellate Authority, Madhya Pradesh & Ors.(3) D v. and R. Obliswami Naidu State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras & Ors.( 4 ) and granted the six permits to (1) Mohd. Matin Sheikh, (2) Satwati Devi, Sardar Singh Chidda Singh and Mahendra Singh, ( 3) Satyapal Khetre Pal, ( 4) Ramesh Mohan Sharma, (5) Chaiju Mal and (6) Hari Dass, disallow; ng the applications of the appel!ants and including Harish Chandra Mishra and rejecting the representations made by Fakir Chand E Gupta and others. Against this order of the Regional Transport Authority, Fakir Chand Gupta and a few others including Harish Chandra Mishra preferred an appeal to the State Transport Annellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated November 26, 1963 set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and remanded the matter to the latter for filling np the six vacancies after follow; ng the procedure referred to in the decision of this Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey (supra) where it was held : - some others The Addi. F "Section 47(3) gives power to the Regional Transport Authority having regard to the matters mentioned in sub s.(!) to limit the number of stage carriages generally etc. It would be clear therefore that when the Regional Transport Authority proceeds in the manner provided in s. 57 to consi- der an application for a stage carriage permit and even, tually decides either to grant it or not to grant it under s. 48 its order has to be subject to the provisions of s. 47, includ- ing s. 47(3) by which the Regional Tran·sport Authority is given the power to limit the number of stages generally etc. ----·--·-. - - (!) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 521. (2) C.A. 95of1965 decided on 27-10-1967. (3) C.A. 727of1965 decided on 22-3-1968. (4) [1969]3 S.C.R. 730. G H i • \ A B c D E F G H 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1978] 3 S.C.R. Therefore, if the Regional Transport Authority has limited the number of stage carriages by exercising its power under s. 47(3), the grant of permits by it under s. 48 has to be subject to the limit fixed under s. 47(3). We cannot accept the contention on behalf of the appellant that when the Re gional Transport Authority following the procedure provided in s. 57, comes to grant or refu'se a permit it can ignore the limit fixed under s. 47(3), because it is also the authority making the order under s. 48. Section 47(3) is concerned with a general ordei: limiting stage carriages generally etc. on a consideration of matters specified ins. 47(1). That gene ral order can be modified by the Regional Transport Autho rity, if it so decides, one way or the other. But the modifica tion of that order is not a matter for consideration when the Regional Transport Authority is dealing with the actual grant of permits under s. 48 read with s. 57, for at that stage what the Regional Transport Authority has to do is to choose between various applicants who may have made applications to it unde.r s. 46 read with s. 57. That in our opinion is not the stage where the general order passed under s. 47(3) can be re-considered for the order under s. 48 is subject to the provisions of s. 47, which includes s. 47(3) under which a general order limiting the number of stage carriages etc. may have been passed." Ten other persons whose applications for grant of permits were rejected also preferred appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal but the same were dismissed as infructuous by the Tribunal vide its order dated Oc!!:Jber 17, 1966 in view of the order already passed by it on November 26, 1963 in the appeal of Fakir Chand Gupta and others. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority at its meetings held on August 28 and 29, 1964 considered the applica tions of 17 persons whose case's had been remanded to it but refused to consider the cases of the appellants on the ground that they had not appealed against the order rejecting their applications in 1962. The Region'!I Transport Authority also rejected the application of Barish Chandra Mishra though his matter had been remanded hy the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra thereupon prefer.red four separate appeals under section 64 of the Act to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Dur ing the pendency of the appeals, Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route be came an inter regional (amalgamated) route by its extension upto ;Bijnor. The!eupon, the appellants and Harish ChaniJra Mishra applied to the Tribunal for amendment of their original applications and for grant of permits for the said amalgamated route. Acceding to their prayer, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed that the appellants and Hari'sh Chandra Mishra be allotted one regular stage carriage permit each for the amalgamated route mentioned above. AgQrieved by tl1is order, Rahimuddin, an existing ooerntor on the Meerut-Mawana-Miranour route filed a petition before the High Court for issuance of a writ quashing the order granting permits in favour of the appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra. The said petition was ABDUL REHMAN V. U.P. TRANSPORT APPELLATE 1RlllUNAL (laswant Singh, J.) 457 allowed by a Single Judge of the Higi1 Court in so far as the appellants were concerned on the ground that 'since the appellants had omitted to appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting their applications for grant of permits in 1962, their case had come to an end and they could not be granted any permit. Dissatisfied with this judgment and order, the appellants preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated August 28, 1973 . It is against this judgment and order that the appellants have come up in appeal to this Court. A B We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable It is true that the appellants did not appeal against the order length. of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting their applications 1962 but as they were informed of the rejection of their applications only in 1964 and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had vide its order dated November 26, 1963 already set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority which had been made in contravention of the settled law, there was in reality no subsisting order against which the appellants could have fruitfully appealed. And even if they had appealed, their appeals were bound to meet the same fate as the other ten appeals which, as already stated, were dismissed as infructuous. In this view of the matter, we find no force in the prefatory submissions made by Mr. Ashok Sen that the applications made by the appellants for grant of the permits to the Regional Transport Authority having become non est with their rejection in 1962, no rival claim made by the appellants which could merit determination was left to be consi dered either by the Regional Transport Authority or by the State Trans port Appellate Tribunal. Coming now to the merits, we are of opinion that having regard to the facts that with its extension upto Bijnor, the route in question had assumed the character of an amalgamated inter-regional route in regard whereto the provisions of section 47 (3) of the Act which, as succinctly held by this Court in Mohd, Ibrahim etc. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras etc.(1) are confined in their operation to a region or a specified area or a specified route within a region were not applicable and the need for increa~ing the number of permits in the interest of public was recogni'sed by the Regional Transport Authority itself in its resolution No. 44(5) passed at its meetings held on July 7 to July 10, 1970 which is expressly alluded to in the aforesaid order dated May 5, 1973 of the State Appellate Tribunal as also the fact quite somet\me and do not appear in any malpractice, we think the High Court should not have in exercise of its writ jqrisdiction interfered in a case of this nature particularly when, the cancellation of the appellants' permits was bound to cause inconvenience and hardship to the travelling public. After all section 47 of the Act emphasises the interest of the travelling public as the dominant consideration in the l!fant of permits and no order in exer cise of powers under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution will ordinarily be pas5ed if the public is likely to suffer. And, surely, thel appellants have been operating to have indulged D E F G B (!) [1971] I S.C.R. 474. .l -I • \ 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 3 S.C.R. A B c D in th!s c~se, aft~r aU tl!ese ye~rs when all these buses having been ply mg, 1t will be ntua!ishc to drrect second consideration of the need to increase the number of permits for the ronte which is now admittedly It is hardly necessary in this connection to an inter-regional route. reiterate the observations made by this O>nrt in Kishanchand N arsingh Das Bhatia v. State Transport Appellate Authority & Ors. (1) that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to interfere with or disturb the decision of specially constituted autho rities or tribunals under the Act especially when the Legislature has en trusted the task of granting or renewing the stage carriage permits to the aforesaid au.thorities or tribunals which are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure and practice and the relevant matters which should engage their attention under the provisions' contained in In dealing with applications for writs of certiorari 'under ,,the Act. Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of the present kind, it is neces sary to bear in mind that the High Court does not exercise the jurisdic- tion of an Appellate Court and the findings or conclusions on questions of fact could hardly be re-examined or disturbed by it under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the well recogni'sed tests in that behalf were satisfied vide : Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C. Chandra sekaran & Ors. (2 ). Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judg ments and orders of the High Court and restore the order dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in so far as the In the circumstances of the case, we leave appellants are concerned. the parties to bear their own costs. E S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1852/75 : - ORDER JAsWANT SINGH, J.-This is a petition under Article 136 of .the Constitution seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated September 3, 1975 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 216 of 1973 upholding the jud!Jment and order d~ted August 28, 1973 of K. N. Singh, J. in writ petition F No. 3310 of 1973 whereby while di~missing the writ petition in part, he maintained the order dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in so far as it allowed the appeal No" 237 of 1969 preferred by Hari'sh Chandra Mishra against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut passed in its meeting held on August 28 and 29, 1964 and directed that a regular stage carriage permit for the amalgamated route known as Meerut-Mawana-Hastinapur-Bijnor and G allied routes, be allowed to him. The facts giving rise to this petition are set out in onr judgn1ent of even dated in Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 1975 and need not be reiterated. In view of the settled position of law that this Court would be reluctant to interfere with or disturb the decision of specially constituted au.tho rities o.r tribunals under the :Mbtor Vehicles Act, 1939 especially when the Legislature has entrusted the task of granting or renewing the stage H • • (!) [1968) 3 S.C.R. 605. (2) [196415 S.C.R. 869. 459 carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities or tribunals which are A expectep .to be fully conversant with the procedure and practice and the reie:'ant matters which should engage their attention under the pro vi'sions o;ontained in the Act and nothing basically wrong with the order sought to be appealed against so far as Harish Chandra Mishra is concerned has been found by the High Court, as also the obse.rva tions made by this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim etc. v. State Transport Appellaie Tribunal, Madras etc.(') we do not find any merit in this B petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs. S.R. Appeal allowed & Petition dismissed. ' (I) [1971] I S.C.R. 474, 481·484.