1964 Supreme(Mad) 389

Madras High Court
VEERASWAMI
Anamalais Bus Transports (P) Ltd., Pollachi - Appellant
Versus
Tiruppur Karur Transports (P) Ltd.Tiruppur - Respondent
Decided On : 09/11/1964

The Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction in proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 to decide the necessity for the route for which permit is asked for.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 47(3), 48(1), 57 - OPENING OF NEW ROUTE - JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - POWER TO RECONSIDER NECESSITY OF ROUTE - APPEALS - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL TO REMIT MATTER FOR FRESH DISPOSAL.

Fact of the Case:

The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, approved the opening of an express route, Coimbatore to Palani with two buses. The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai in whose jurisdiction a portion of the route lies gave its concurrence to it. Applications were invited for grant of two permits as express service. Forty-two applications were received, which were published under S. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. When the applications were taken up for consideration, they were adjourned as, in the meantime, the State Transport Department had commenced an express service between Coimbatore and Nagarcoil with two buses on which the route Coimbatore to Palani entirely overlapped. The State Government added two more buses on this express route and approved a scheme of running a total of eight buses on the route Coimbatore to Nagarcoil. Another route Coimbatore to Udumalpet via Kinathukadavu and Pollachi which was opened subsequently, also overlapped substantially the route Coimbatore to Palani. The trips of all the buses running on different sectors of the route Coimbatore to Palani have also since October 1960 been increased consequent on the general set up in the daily mileage of the buses to 200 allowed by the Government. When the applications were finally taken up for hearing, the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, considered it unnecessary, therefore, to proceed further with the grant of permits for the express route Coimbatore to Palani. Some of the applicants opposed this view of the Regional Transport Authority, while the Anamalais Bus Transports (P) Ltd. objected to the grant of permits on the ground that the route was not necessary. The Regional Transport Authority however rejected all the applications on the view that while considering an application for a stage carriage permit, it was bound to have regard, among other things, to other passenger transport services between the places to be served, that in view of the additional services already provided on the route and of the operation of an express service by State Transport Department between Coimbatore and Nagarcoil, which completely covered the route in question, the circumstances, which originally led to the notification of the route, no longer existed and that it would not be in public interest to put two express buses on the route. Tiruppur Karur Transports (P) Ltd. Tiruppur, and V. C. K. Bus Service (P) Ltd., Coimbatore, who were among the applicants for permits, preferred appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Anamalais Bus Transports (P) Ltd. on its application was impleaded as one of the respondents to the appeals. It held that the appeals were maintainable and on the view that the Regional Transport Authority, while considering the applications under S. 48, could not vary its earlier resolution deciding to grant permits on the route and that it could do so and revise its earlier order only by another resolution under S. 47(1) of the Act, allowed the appeals directing the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of all the applications afresh. Since the Tribunal was remitting the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, it expressed no opinion on the merits. The Anamalais Bus Transports (P) Ltd. seeks by W. P. 625 of 1963 to quash the Tribunal's order. V. C. K. Bus Service (P) Ltd., and Tirupui Karur Transports (P) Ltd. also seek by writ petition No. 1213 and 1214 respectively to quash a part of the order of the Tribunal, on the main ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to remit the matter thereby giving the Regional Transport Authority a fresh opportunity to initiate proceedings under S. 47 of the Act, and that in any case, it was wrong in directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider all the applications over again without restricting the fresh disposal to the parties before the Tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction in proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 to decide the necessity for the route for which permit is asked for. The Regional Transport Authority was well within its jurisdiction in reconsidering its earlier decision. The Tribunal was not justified in remitting to the Regional Transport Authority the consideration of the grant of permits in the light of its independent decision on the question of the necessity of the route.

Issues: 1. Whether the Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction in proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 to decide the necessity for the route for which permit is asked for? 2. Whether the Regional Transport Authority was well within its jurisdiction in reconsidering its earlier decision? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in remitting to the Regional Transport Authority the consideration of the grant of permits in the light of its independent decision on the question of the necessity of the route?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to decide the necessity of a route is not derived by the Regional Transport Authority from Section 47(3), which is only confined to fixation of limit of stage carriages for which permits may be granted. When an application for a stage carriage permit is not required to mention the limit of the number of stage carriages, which is not also among the considerations which should govern the grant or refusal of an application for a permit except in respect of the proviso to Section 57(3) the limit under Section 47(3) has in view of Section 48(1), necessarily to be fixed separately and independent of applications for permit and proceedings arising from them. But that, in my opinion, is not the case with the opening of a new route which, when a permit is applied for a certain route to be opened, becomes a part of the consideration in which the applications have to be accepted or rejected in the light of the matters in and representations under Section 47(1). In my opinion, the Regional Transport Authority will, therefore, have jurisdiction in proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 to decide the necessity for the route for which permit is asked for. 2. Once it is found, as I have that the question, whether a route for which a permit is applied, can and indeed has to be, gone into by the Regional Transport Authority, while considering the applications for permit, it appears, to my mind to be too much of a technicality that because the Regional Transport Authority has already decided the necessity of a route, that will prevent the same authority from reconsidering the question while deciding the application for a permit. I am, therefore, unable to accept the view of the Tribunal that the Regional Transport Authority has acted in excess of its jurisdiction in reconsidering the question of necessity of the route in the proceedings under Section 57. In my opinion, the Regional Transport Authority was well within its jurisdiction in reconsidering its earlier decision. 3. The Supreme Court in Hanuman Transport Co. Ltd. v. Meenakshi G. Ramabhai, C. A. No. 794 of 1963 (SC) held that where a Regional Transport Authority rejected an application of an appellant before it, that application came to an end and if such an applicant did not appeal, the Tribunal, while allowing the appeals filed by other aggrieved applicants, had no jurisdiction to direct the Regional Transport Authority to consider and dispose of afresh even the applications which had been rejected but no appeals therefrom were preferred. That of course was not a case, where all the applications were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that the route was not necessary. That was a case of a grant of a permit to one of the rival applicants and the Tribunal on appeal by one of the unsuccessful applicants allowed it directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider all the applicants including that of the applicant who had failed to appeal. Even so, the principle of C. A. No. 794 of 1963 (SC) would appear to extend and apply to such a case as the one under consideration.

Final Decision: W. P. 625 of 1963 is allowed and the Tribunal's order is quashed. W. P. 1213 and 1214 of 1963 are dismissed. No costs in any of them. The Tribunal will dispose of the appeals afresh.