1. Dispute over the State Government's power under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to increase the number of stage carriage permits beyond the limit fixed by the Authority. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 253
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
31st July, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.N. WANCHOO AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Abdul Mateen, Appellant
Versus
Ram Kailash Pandey and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 195 of 1962.
Advocate appeared
Mr. Basudeo Prasad, Advocate and M/s. R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and M. K. Ramamurthi, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., for Appellant; Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr. D. Gobardhan. Advocate for Respondent No.2; Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Advocates:
B.D.SHARMA, BASUDEV PRASAD, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.P.Varma
B.D.SHARMA, BASUDEV PRASAD, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.P.Varma
Revisional and appellate authorities cannot grant permits beyond the limit fixed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act when deciding individual applications, as their powers are subject to the same restrictions as the original granting authority.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 47, 48, 57, 64 and 64-A (as amended by State Amendment Act) - Grant of stage carriage permits - Power to limit number of permits - Revisional jurisdiction of State Government - The power of the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits under Section 48 is subject to the provisions of Section 47, including the power to limit the number of stage carriages under Section 47(3) - When the Regional Transport Authority deals with the grant of permits under Section 48 read with Section 57, it must act within the limits fixed under Section 47(3) - The Appellate Authority under Section 64 and the revisional authority under Section 64-A, when dealing with an application by an aggrieved person, are confined within the same limits as the Regional Transport Authority - Revisional authority cannot pass an order which the authority whose orders are being revised has no authority to pass (Paras 4, 7, 9).
(B) New Route - Inference of limit - Where a new route is advertised for the first time specifying a certain number of vacancies, it is reasonable to infer that the Regional Transport Authority has decided to limit the number of stage carriages on that route to that specific number under Section 47(3) (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
A Regional Transport Authority advertised a new route with two vacancies for permanent stage carriage permits. After various appeals and a revision application, the State Government upheld the cancellation of the appellant's permit but granted an additional third permit to the appellant. This was challenged on the ground that the State Government lacked the jurisdiction to increase the number of permits beyond the limit fixed by the Regional Transport Authority.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to set aside the grant of the third permit was correct. The State Government, acting in its revisional capacity, cannot exceed the limits fixed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47(3).
Issues: Whether the State Government, exercising revisional power under Section 64-A, has the authority to increase the number of permits beyond the limit previously fixed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47(3).
Ratio Decidendi: The power to grant permits under Section 48 is subject to the limits fixed under Section 47(3). While the Regional Transport Authority can revise a general limit, it cannot do so while deciding individual permit applications. Consequently, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority are bound by the limits fixed under Section 47(3) when deciding appeals or revisions filed by aggrieved individuals. In the case of a new route, the number of vacancies mentioned in the advertisement is deemed to be the limit fixed under Section 47(3).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the revisional authority under Section 64-A possesses the power to increase the number of permits beyond the limit previously fixed by the Regional Transport Authority. (Para 2 )
3. The power to grant permits under Section 48 is subject to limits under Section 47(3), and revisional authority under Section 64-A is confined to those same limits. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 )
4. Revisional authority under Section 64-A cannot increase the number of permits beyond the limit fixed under Section 47(3) when dealing with an application by an aggrieved person. (Para 7 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the order granting an additional permit beyond the fixed limit was held to be without jurisdiction. (Para 13 )
6. Does the State Government's revisional power under Section 64-A allow it to pass orders that the original granting authority had no power to pass?
No. The revisional authority's power is confined to matters the Regional Transport Authority and Appellate Authority could consider. It cannot grant permits beyond the limits fixed under Section 47(3) when exercising revisional jurisdiction over an individual's application. (Para 7 )
7. Can the Regional Transport Authority ignore the limit fixed under Section 47(3) while granting permits under Section 48?
No. The power to grant permits under Section 48 is subject to the provisions of Section 47, including the limits fixed under Section 47(3). While the Authority can revise general limits, it cannot do so while deciding individual permit applications. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 )
8. Can a limit on the number of permits under Section 47(3) be inferred from an advertisement for a new route?
Yes. In the case of a new route opened for the first time, specifying the number of vacancies in the advertisement is reasonable evidence that the Authority decided to limit the number of stage carriages under Section 47(3). (Para 10 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J.: This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Patna High Court. Brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. It appears that a new route Gopalganj -Pahlezghat was advertised by the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority in July 1957 and applications were invited for permanent stage carriage permits and the advertisement stated that there were two vacancies on the route. A number of persons applied for the two permits and in January, 1958 the Regional Transport Authority granted permits to the appellant and another person. This order was taken in appeal to the Appellate Authority, which however failed. Thereafter Sudhakar Sharma, who is one of the respondents, before us, moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and in April 1960 the High Court quashed the order of the Appellate Authority on the basis of the judgment of this court in Ram Gopal v. Anant Prasad 1959 Supp (2) SCR 692: The case then went back to the Appellate Authority for re-hearing. The Appellate Authority thereupon modified the order of the Regional Transport Authority and the permit granted to the appellant was cancelled and in his place a permit was granted to Sudhakar Sharma; the permit granted to the other person was not interfered with. Thereupon, the appellant made an application to the State Government under S. 64 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. 4 of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act No. 27 of 1950, which provides that
"the State Government may, on application made to it in this behalf within 30 days of the passing of the order in the course of any proceeding taken under this Chapter by any authority or officer subordinate to it, call for the records of such proceeding and after examining such records pass such orders as it thinks fit."
The application was heard by the Minister for Transport and he upheld the order of the Appellate Authority. At the same time however, he took the view that
"with the introduction of bus-service in North Bihar, people are becoming more and more busminded as they have been getting cheap and quick means of transport and therefore an additional service would add to the facilities provided to the public without impairing in any way the efficiency of the existing service."
Therefore, while upholding the order of the Appellate Authority cancelling the permit of the appellant and granting a permit instead to Sudhakar Sharma, he felt that the ends of Justice would be met if an additional permit was granted to the appellant, who had proved to be a desirable operator. He therefore ordered that an additional service be allowed to the appellant for the said route. Thereupon Ram Kailash Pandey who had also made an application under S. 64 A and whose application had been dismissed filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the Minister for Transport. His main contention was that the grant of an additional permit to the appellant was wholly unjustified, particularly in the face of his far superior claim. To this petition the appellant as well as the two persons to whom permits were granted and the State of Bihar, the Appellate Authority as well as the Regional Transport Authority were made parties. When the petition came to be heard before the High Court it was contended that the State Government had no power when dealing with an application under S. 64-A, to increase the number of permits to be granted from two which was the limit fixed by the Regional Transport Authority, to three, and therefore, its order granting the third permit to the appellant was without jurisdiction. This contention was accepted by the High Court, and it set aside that part of the order by which a third permit was granted to the appellant. But the High Court refused to interfere with the rest of the order granting permits to the two other persons. Thereupon, the appellant applied for a certificate to appeal to this Court, which was
