Back
1971 Supreme(Gau) 23
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P.K.Goswami, M.C.Pathak, JJ.
J.Kishori Mohan Sarkar -Appellant
Versus
State Transport Authority -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 764 of 1969
Decided On : 13-04-1971
S.K.Ghose , S.C.Das, B.K.Das, A.M.Majumdar
The RTA has the power to increase the number of contract carriage permits without following the procedure laid down in Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provided that it considers the extent to which additional contract carriages are necessary or desirable in the public interest and gives a hearing to the applicants.
Headnote:
CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT - INCREASE IN NUMBER OF PERMITS - PROCEDURE - SECTION 50 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 64-A OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - RULES 65 AND 67 OF THE ASSAM MOTOR VEHICLE RULES, 1940 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) increased the number of contract carriage permits from 5 to 13 without following the procedure laid down in Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The State Transport Authority (STA) set aside the RTA's order on the ground that it was improper and illegal. The petitioner, who was granted one of the permits, challenged the STA's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the RTA's order was not improper or illegal. The RTA had considered the extent to which additional contract carriages were necessary or desirable in the public interest and had given a hearing to the applicants. The STA had erred in setting aside the RTA's order.
Issues: 1. Whether the RTA had followed the procedure laid down in Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 2. Whether the STA had jurisdiction to set aside the RTA's order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 does not lay down any specific procedure for increasing the number of contract carriage permits. 2. The RTA had considered the extent to which additional contract carriages were necessary or desirable in the public interest and had given a hearing to the applicants. Therefore, the RTA had not violated any procedure laid down under Section 50. 3. The STA had erred in setting aside the RTA's order as the RTA's order was not improper or illegal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the STA's order. The RTA's order was restored.
2. The State Transport Authority entertained the revision application under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. hereinafter called 'the Act', on the application of the Secretary. Dhubri Hat-Bazar Bus Association (Respondent No. 4). who withdrew from the contest here.
3. The facts of the case are as follows: The Regional Transport Authority invited applications for five casual contract carriage (Hat-Bazar Busl permits for certain specified centres by a notification dated 22nd February, 1968 published in the Assam Gazette of March. 13. 1968. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the Regional Transport Authority reserved the right to increase or decrease the number of permits according to demand. There were more than 250 applicants for these permits. The Authority considered the matter and decided as follows:
"At this stage the members of their own information and local knowledge and in view of the representations made vide Resolution No. XXIV of the last R. T. A. meeting held on 27th and 28th October, 67 and 19th February 1968 felt the necessity of increasing the number of contract carriage permits for immediate disposal from among the present applicants numbering more than 250. The Board after due deliberation and careful consideration decided to increase 8 (eight) contract carriage permits as shown below against each centre for immediate consideration from among the present applicants".
It appears that in the earlier resolutions of the Authority referred to in the above order they had already decided to increas five contract carriage permits which they had to advertise. Thus, with the above order, the number of permits came to be thirteen, which have been allotted by the Regional Transport Authority to thirteen applicants including this petitioner. The State Transport Authority in revision, while setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, observed as follows:
"The R. T. A. advertised for 5 periodic contract carriage permits only. The granting of that number of permits or a few more would have been reasonably within the R. T. A's competence. But it cannot be said that they had not acted adversely to the interests of the existing operators by raising the number to 12 which is more than double the number advertised. To do this without giving an opportunity to the existing operators had been improper and the granting of two temporary permits against permanent needs had further added to this impropriety."
We are not concerned with the second part of the order regarding the decison to increase the number to 70 at present. Finally, it held:
"Therefore action of the R. T. A. in increasing the number without following the procedure provided in Section 50 of the M. V. Act is improper, illegal and without jurisdiction."
4. Sections 49. 50 and 51 of the Act deal with application for contract carriage permit, procedure of the Regional Transport Authority in considering such application, and grant of contract carriage permits respectively- Under Section 57(1). an application for a contract carriage permit or a private carrier's permit may be made at any time. Under subsection (61 of Section 57, when any representation has been made by the persons or authorities referred to in Section 50 to the effect that the number of contract carriages for which permits have already been granted in any region or any area within a region is sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region or of such
