S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.:-

These appeals are filed under clause 15 of the letters Patent against the judgment given by Veeraswami, J., in a number of applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raising a common question under the Motor Vehicles Act. The subject-matter of the applications relates to proposals for the opening up of new routes, namely, Mettupalayam to Gudalur via Ootacamund, Ootacamund to Devarshola via Pykara and Vellore to Kilarasampatti and for putting up of additional stage carriages on the existing route, Coimbatore, Tudialur-Mettupalayam.

Certain existing operators over the routes or sectors thereof opposed the proposal. But the concerned Regional Transport Authority in each of the cases passed an order limiting the number of buses over the particular routes. The Transport Commissioner confirmed such orders in their entirety in a few cases and in regard to a part with respect to the rest. The Regional Transport Authority thereupon proceeded to invite applications for the grant of stage carriage permits over the routes in question and to dispose of them in accordance with the provisions of section 57 of the Act. The operators who objected to the opening up of new routes and for putting up of additional buses on the existing routes, applied for the grant of copies of orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority under Rule 148(B) of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, but their applications were rejected on the ground that the orders being administrative in character, no revision could be filed against them under the provisions of section 64 (2) of the Act and that, therefore, copies of the orders could not be granted.

Thereupon those operators feeling aggrieved by the refusal of the copies by the Regional Transport Authority, filed applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of mandamus directing grant of copies of the order and for a writ of prohibition against the authority to restrain it from proceeding with the applications for the grant of permits pending filing of revision petitions against orders passed under section 47 (3).

Veeraswami, J., accepted those applications and directed the concerned Regional Transport Authority to grant certified copies to the respondents herein and prohibited it from proceeding with the applications for the grant of permits for a period of thirty days after the grant of such copies of orders, so as to enable the aggrieved operators to file revision petitions to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order fixing the number of stage carriages to be run in the route in question.

The correctness of the Judgment of the learned Judge has been contested in these appeals.

The substantial question that falls for decision is whether the respondents would be entitled to obtain copies of the orders of the Regional Transport Authority passed under section 47 (3) of the Act limiting the number of buses over the route, with a view to file revision petitions against such orders to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of Section 64(2) of the Act.

Rule 148(b) of the Rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act, requires that an application to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under section 64(2) of the Act shall be accompanied by the original or certified copy of the order or proceedings against which the application is preferred. It is not the case of the respondents that they require copies of the orders passed under section 47 (3) for any purpose other than that of filing revision petitions under section 64 (2) of the Act. Therefore, it will become relevant, as indeed the learned Judge has considered it relevant to decide whether a revision petition would lie against an order passed under section 47 (3) of the Act.

The learned Advocate-General appearing for the Regional Transport Authority has contended that the order under section 47 (3) limiting the number of buses over a route whether such a route

Click Here to Read the rest of this document