Compliance with Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act is mandatory and a condition precedent for the Regional Transport Authority to entertain and consider the application for grant of stage carriage permits on intra-regional routes. Violation of Section 47(3) renders the permit a nullity and setting aside the permit is in the public interest.

( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court consisting of My Lord the Chief Justice and Venkatesh, J. has referred the following question for the opinion of Full bench. "whether a permit granted in violation of the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, can be validated solely on the ground that the operator has operated the stage carriage services on the route for a long period and that interference with such unlawful grant on a hypertechnical ground would not be in public interest ?"

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this reference are succinctly stated in the order of reference made by the Division Bench. Therefore, it is not necessary to burden the record by repeating them in our order.

( 3 ) THE permits in question which were the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge were admittedly granted in violation of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act' ). But, they were sought to be validated on the ground that the Petitioners/operators had operated the stage carriage services on the routes in question for a long period and, therefore, this Court should not on a Technical ground interfere with the grants made in violation of subsection (3) of Section 47 of the Act, as the same would not be in public interest.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions is that subjection (3) of Section 47 of the Act is a procedural provision and an order made in violation of the provisions of Section 47 (3) of the Act is not ab initio void but only voidable and public interest being the dominant factor in the grant of permits, the same would suffer by setting aside the permits in question under which the petitioners have been operating the services for a long period. In support of this proposition he has placed reliance on the decisions of the supreme Court in M. Chinnaswamy v. M/s. Dhandayuthanpani Roadways (P) ltd. (A. I. R. 1977 S. C. , 2095) and Abdul rahman And Others v. The State Transport appellate Tribunal And Others (A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 949) which were followed by a division Bench of this Court in W. A. Nos. 136 and 137 of 1973. He also relies on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in smt. Shakuntala Devi v. Transport appellate Tribunal. Jaipur And Others (A. I R. 1971 Rajasthan 226 ). It is further submitted by him that regard being had to the matters to be taken into account in terms of Section 47 (1) of the Act and the procedure to be followed as per Section 57 (3) of the Act, while considering an application for grant of stage carriage permit and condit ons to be imposed on stage carriage permit in terms of Section 48 (3) of the Act. Section 47 (3) of the act is deemed to have been complied with. In support of this proposition, he relies on para 21 of the judgment of the supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v State transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (AIR 1970 SC 1542 ). He also maintains that the permits were granted initially for a period three years and now the same have been in operation for a period of more than 8 years, that by itself is sufficient to show that the permits are granted in public interest and by annulling the same, public interest would suffer.

( 5 ) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that provisions of Section 47 (3) of the Act make it incumbent on the Regional Transport authority to determine first the number of permits to be granted on an intra-regional route which is not opened up in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 of the Act with particular reference to sub-section (3) thereof that unless the route is opened and number of stage carriages to be operated on the route is determined as per Section 47 (3) of the act, the Regional Transport Authority does not get jurisdiction to grant permit on an intra-regional route. Therefore, the impugned orders are void and not voidable. He relies on the observations of the learned author Wade on Ad