The Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to consider applications for stage carriage permits without first fixing the number of buses that can be permitted on the route under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

NATESAN, J. :- These cases raise a common question, the place of Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the scheme of the Act for the grant of permit for stage carriages. Of the writ appeals, one set of appeals (W. A. 264 of 1967, 285 of 1967 etc.), arises from the dismissal of applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the respective Regional Transport Authorities from proceeding further in pursuance of Notifications issued under Section 57 (3) of the Act, and the other set of writ appeals (W. A. 327 of 1967, 400 of 1967 etc.) have been preferred against the rejection of petitions for interim orders pending applications for the issue of writs of prohibition to similar effect. The connected writ petitions have also been called up for disposal. Having regard to the question that calls for determination, it is needless to deal separately with every one of the petitions and appeals, the substantial purpose of these cases being to secure writs of prohibition restraining the respective Regional Transport Authorities from proceedings with consideration of the applications for stage carriage permits. The applicants for writs in these cases are existing operators on the related routes. We shall however, briefly refer to the facts in one of the cases, say W. A. 264 of 1967 arising out of W. P. 1994 (1984?) of 1967 and discuss the principles applicable generally.

2. The appellant in W. A. 264 of 1967, is operating one bus on the route Bhavani to Sathy via Jambai and Athani in Coimbatore Dist. and it is stated that this is the only bus plying on the entire route even though in sectors of the route there are several stage carriage operators. When on 14-9-1966 the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore invited applications for the grant of one additional permit on the route Bhavani to Sathy, the petitioner, besides filing his application for the grant of the permit to him and making representation under Section 57 (3), filed also his objections to the addition of a new bus on the route on the ground that the route in question was more than adequately served by the existing service. When the petitioner requested the Regional Transport Authority to furnish him with a copy of the order under Section 47 (3) of the Act, fixing the number of buses on the route, the application for a copy of the order, it is stated was rejected on the ground that no order under Section 47 (3) had been passed. Thereupon the petitioner represented by his letter dated 14-7-1967 that unless the maximum number of permits to be granted is fixed under Section 47 (3) the Regional Transport Authority would have no jurisdiction to proceed with the grant of a permit under S. 57 (5). The Regional Transport authority replied thereto stating that no order had been passed under Section 47 (2) and that would be done at the time of consideration of the applications. The Regional Transport authority proceeding further with the matter, fixed the date of hearing of the applications to 22-7-1967. The petitioner thereupon came to this Court praying for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Regional Transport authority from taking further steps pursuant to the notification under Section 57 (2) and also praying for the stay of further proceedings thereunder pending the final disposal of the application for prohibition. The learned Judge, Kailasam, J. before whom this and other petitions for similar relief came up, rejected them at the admission stages, the learned Judge taking the view that there could be no impediment to the authorities proceeding under Section 57, if the number of stage carriages is not limited under Section 47. In some of the orders which are the subject of appeals, the learned Judge would hold that only when a number of buses are restricted on the route, an order increasing the number of permits would be necessary under Sec. 47 (3) and that in the absence of any such restricting orde