Judgment

SHELAT, J. : The question arising in this appeal, by certificate, may be stated thus :

When an applicant applies for a permit to run a passenger bus service on the ground that the route for which he applies, though one not yet opened, is necessary in public interest, but the Regional Transport Authority comes to the conclusion that it does not, and thereupon rejects his application, whether his order is one under S. 48 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 4 of 1939 and is, therefore, appealable under Section 64 (a) of that Act ?

2. The route involved in this case was the one between Meerut and Dankaur which had no direct passenger bus service. There were, however, two routes which were being operated, namely, one from Meerut to Bulandshahar and the other from Siana to Dankaur, one crossing the other, so that if one wanted to go from Meerut to Dankaur there was no direct service, and, therefore, he would have first to travel in the bus running from Meerut to Bulandshahar, get down at a place near Gulsothi and catch the bus running from Siana to Dankaur. This was the position when the appellants, amongst others, applied to the Regional Transport Authority for permits to operate a direct service from Meerut to Dankaur. This was, therefore, not a case where the R. T. A. had already decided upon opening the new route, fixed the number of permits necessary for such a route and then invited applications from operators. Nevertheless, the R. T. A., following the procedure laid down in Section 57 of the Act, published these applications, to which objections were raised amongst others by those who were operating on the routes earlier referred to.

3. These applications came up for consideration in the meeting held before the R. T. A. on July 28, 1965, when Item 3 of the Agenda for that meeting was :

"To pronounce decision regarding recognition and classification of Meerut to Dankaur via Hapur-Gulsothi-Sikandarabad route and grant of permits thereon.

It is apparent that Item 3 involved two questions for determination of the R.T.A.,; (a) whether the route proposed by the appellants and other should be opened, and (b) if so, to whom, amongst the applicants, should permit or permits, depending upon the number of permits he should decide upon, should be granted. After hearing the applicants and those who opposed them, the R.T.A. was satisfied that there was no sufficient demand for such a direct service, and, therefore, there was no justification for opening the proposed new route. Having arrived at that conclusion, the question of granting or not granting permits to individual applicants did not arise and he rejected the applications of the appellants and other applicants. Appeals having been filed before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal reversed the order of the R.T.A. and granted permits to the three appellants. The respondents thereupon filed writ petitions in the High Court for quashing the order of the Tribunal contending that no appeal against the order of the R.T.A. lay under Section 64 (a), and that consequently, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such appeals and grant permits to the appellants. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the writ petitions in the first instance, dismissed them, but on appeal against his order the Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that no appeal against the said order of the R.T.A. lay under S. 64(a), and accordingly, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Tribunal s order. This appeal is directed against this order.

4. Counsel for the appellants urged that there was no provision in the Act separately providing for the R.T.A. to decide first as to whether a particular route proposed by an applicant should be opened or not. It was argued that the provisions of Chap. IV, and in particular Sections 47 and 57, show that once an application for a permit is made and is published and objections thereto are invited and the R.T.A. applies his mind to it and rejects