SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 273

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.
Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, Appellant
Versus
The State Transport Authority, U. P. and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 636 of 1967,
D/- 26-9-1967
Advocates Appeared
Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate, (M/s. J. P. Goyal, D. N. Jha and G. S. Chatterjee Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
D.N.JHA, G.S.CHATTERJEE, J.P.GOYAL, O.P.RANA, S.T.DESAI, SARJU PRASAD

A revision lies under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against an order passed under Section 47(3) of the Act.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 47(3) - REVISION - WHETHER LIES AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 47(3) - HELD, YES.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an existing operator on a route, filed a revision petition against an order of the Regional Transport Authority limiting the number of stage carriages under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The State Transport Authority dismissed the revision petition on the ground that a mere decision of the Regional Transport Authority limiting the number of stage carriages under Section 47(3) could not form the subject matter of a revision application. The High Court upheld the decision of the State Transport Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that a revision lay under Section 64-A of the Act against an order passed under Section 47(3) of the Act. The Court observed that the order under Section 47(3) was an order within the meaning of Section 64-A and that an existing operator could be an aggrieved person by an order made under Section 47(3).

Issues: Whether a revision lies against an order passed under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a revision lay under Section 64-A of the Act against an order passed under Section 47(3) of the Act. The Court observed that the order under Section 47(3) was an order within the meaning of Section 64-A and that an existing operator could be an aggrieved person by an order made under Section 47(3).

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgement

SIKRI, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment, dated November 11, 1966, of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking to quash the order of the State Transport Authority, dated March 20/21, 1963. The state Transport Authority had by this order rejected the appellant s revision petition against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that a mere decision of the Regional Transport Authority limiting the number of stage carriages under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) hereinafter referred to as the Act could not form the subject matter of a revision application. It was of the view that "when the Regional Transport Authority actually proceeds to fill up the vacancies which it has decided to create then the persons whose interests would be adversely affected, would have a right of representation before the Regional Transport Authority, and in the case of their representation being rejected by the Regional Transport Authority they will have a right of appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal."

2. The High Court was of the view that an existing operator had no say in the matter of determination of the strength on a route under Sub-section (3) of section 47 and it was in the discretion of the Regional Transport Authority to determine the strength on a route, after considering various matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) of section 47. The High Court further observed that as the order passed under Section 47 (3), to revise which the appellant had filed a revision under section 64-A, was a good order and did not call for any interference, it did not consider it necessary to decide whether a revision lay against such an order under Section 64-A of the Act.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S. T. Desai, contends that an order under Section 47 (3) of the Act, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative, does affect the existing operators on the route and their representations must be considered by the Regional Transport Authority before passing an order under Section 47 (3). He further submits that a revision lay under S. 64-A of the Act and the same should not have been dismissed on the ground that no revision lay.

4. The relevant statutory provisions are Section 47 and Section 64-A of the Act, and read thus

"47. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit:-(1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit have regard to the following matters, namely :-

(a) the interests of the public generally;

(b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken;

(c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be served ;

(d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service ;

(e) the operation by the applicant of other transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending ;

(f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area and shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area or by any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf by the State Government, or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies.

Provided that other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit from a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under a














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top