Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.: The appellant State Corporation, constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act (LXIV of 1950), challenges in this appeal, by special leave, the order of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, dated October 5, 1967 in Special Civil Application No. 770 of 1967.

2. The appellant, as well as respondents 1 to 5 and 8 to 16, applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, on various dates in the years 1964-65, under S. 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter called the Act) for grant of stage carriage permits on the routes (a) Chanda to Chimur; (b) Aroi to Manora; (c) Sakoli to Lakhandur; (d) Gondkheri to Kalmeshwar; and (e) Chanda to Rajura. The appellant s applications in respect of routes (a) and (c) were for additional trips and timings. Regarding (B), (d) and (e), the appellant s applications were for grant of permits over the new routes opened for the first time. The applications were notified by the Regional Transport Authority under S. 57 (3) of the Act. The appellant and the other applicants filed objections and representations against each other s applications. The Regional Transport Authority, after considering the applications and objections and hearing the parties, passed orders granting the permits in favour of the appellant, in respect of all the routes. The order in respect of route (a) was passed on May 18, 1965, for routes (b) and (c) on August 19, 1965, for route (d) on October 9, 1965 and for route (e) on October 30, 1965.

3. Respondents 1 to 5 files appeals before the Appellate Committee of the Transport Authority of Maharashtra, challenging the grant of permits in favour of the appellant and rejecting their respective applications. Their appeals were Nos. 64, 82, 84, 106 and 114, all of 1965. Respondents 8 to 16 do not seem to have filed any appeals. All the appeals were heard and disposed of by the Appellate Committee by a common order, dated June 9, 1966.

4. Before the Appellate Committee respondents 1 to 5 raised a contention that the mandatory information required to be submitted in an application for permit under S. 46 of the Act, read with Form P.St. S. A., prescribed under rule 80 of the relevant rules, has not been fully and completely furnished by the appellant in its application. They also filed an affidavit pointing out what, according to them, were the details of information that should have been furnished by the appellant. The Appellate Committee, after noting that the appellant herein represented, that the major items of information, as required under S. 46 and the relevant form, had been given in the application, has expressed the view that information regarding certain other matters, as provided in the form of application, had not been provided by the State Corporation, and in consequence there was a major defect in its application and that the other operators had no opportunity to properly object and contest the claim of the State Corporation. In this view the Appellate Committee remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for reconsideration with a direction that the State Corporation should be asked to furnish complete information and, after receipt of such information in the prescribed form, they must be duly published and an opportunity afforded to the respondents 1 to 5 herein to be duly heard by way of objection and the entire matter be re-heard and decided afresh.

5. Respondents 1 to 5 challenged this order of the Appellate Committee before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appeal No. 770 of 1966 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. They contended before the High Court that the Appellate Committee should have rejected the application of the State Corporation on the ground that the mandatory provisions of S. 46 of the Act had not been complied with. They also urged that the application, filed by the State Corporation, inasmuch as it lacked information on vital matters, as provide