Maintainability of appeal to central Road Traffic Board.

This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of our learned brother, Subba Rao, J., setting aside the order of the Government and that of the Central Road Traffic Board and allowing writ petition No. 282 of 1951 to quash the orders. The only question, that was debated before him and now before us, is whether there was a right of appeal to the Central Road Traffic Board against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 31st August, 1950, refusing to grant the application of the appellants to extend the route of the bus service from Atmakur to Velgode. The learned Judge held that the appeal was incompetent, that therefore the order of the Central Road Traffic Board extending the permit in favour of the appellants to Velgode was without jurisdiction, and that the order passed by the Government in the exercise of their revisional jurisdiction confirming the order of the Central Road Traffic Board was also void.

In order to appreciate the contention that the appeal to the Central Road Traffic Board is incompetent, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. The appellants, two in number, were running buses along the route Kurnool-Atmakur from the year 1944 under permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority in that year. In 1949, it was decided by the Regional Transport Authority to extend the route to Velgode, i.e., a place beyond Atmakur. Applications for that route were filed by the first respondent and also by the appellants. On 16th June, 1950, the Regional Transport Authority called for objections to grant the permits for the extended route to the applicants. By an order of 28th June, 1950, the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to the first respondent to run his buses up to Velgode. The application by the appellants, however, was not disposed of till 31st August, 1950, when the Regional Transport Authority made an order rejecting their application. The order of 28th June, 1950, granting a permit to the first respondent was not carried on appeal by the appellants. The order made on their application was the subject-matter of an appeal to the Central Road Traffic Board, and notwithstanding the objection of the first respondent that the appeal was incompetent, the Central Road Traffic Board, overruling the objection, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted permits in favour of the appellants also, extending their service to Velgode. The first respondent carried the matter unsuccessfully in revision to the Government, and thereafter he filed a writ petition, which was disposed by Subba Rao, J. As stated above, he allowed the application and held that the appeal to the Central Road Traffic Board by the appellants against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 31st August, 1950, was incompetent.

In this appeal by the appellants their learned counsel, Mr. Bhashyam, adopted a line of argument which was not the one adopted by him before Subba Rao, J. It is unnecessary therefore to deal in detail with the reasoning of the learned Judge by which he arrived at the conclusion, that the appeal to the Central Road Traffic Board was incompetent. It will be sufficient if we deal in this appeal with the arguments as presented before us by Mr. Bhashyam, the learned counsel for the appellants. He attempted to maintain his position that the appeal was competent by relying upon clauses (a) and (b) of section 64. He further relied on rule 208 of the Rules framed by the Government under the Motor Vehicles Act by virtue of the power conferred upon the Provincial Government by section 68 of the Act. His contention based on the said rule was that the applications made by the appellants should be treated as applications for the grant of a permit as laid down by that Rule, and if so treated, the refusal to grant the extension should be deemed to be a refusal to grant a permit, which order would be appealable under section 64(a) of the Act. It is therefore n