Back
1964 Supreme(All) 54
Allahbad High Court
JAGDISHSAHAI
Satya Pal Khetra Pal - Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal U.P. Lucknow - Respondent
Decided On : 03/05/1964
S. C. Khare and S. K. Dhaon, for Petitioners; S. N. Kacker, D. P. Naithani, and H. N. Seth, for Opposite Parties.
The RTA has the power to increase the strength of stage carriages even after proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 of the Act have been initiated, provided that proper proceedings are initiated under Section 47(3) of the Act.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 47(3), 48, 57, 64 - INCREASE IN STRENGTH OF STAGE CARRIAGES - PROCEDURE - POWER OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) increased the strength of stage carriages on a route from 15 to 20 during the pendency of proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act) for the grant of permits. The Tribunal, on appeal, set aside the RTA's order and remanded the case for reconsideration, holding that the RTA should have issued one permit and issued a further notification for an increase in strength. The petitioners, who were applicants for permits, challenged the Tribunal's order by way of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Tribunal's order was not appealable under Section 64 of the Act, as the increase in strength was not one of the grounds provided for by the section. The Court further held that the RTA had the power to increase the strength of stage carriages even after proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 of the Act had been initiated, provided that proper proceedings were initiated under Section 47(3) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal's order was appealable under Section 64 of the Act? 2. Whether the RTA had the power to increase the strength of stage carriages after proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 of the Act had been initiated?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Tribunal's order was not appealable under Section 64 of the Act, as the increase in strength was not one of the grounds provided for by the section. 2. The Court held that the RTA had the power to increase the strength of stage carriages even after proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 of the Act had been initiated, provided that proper proceedings were initiated under Section 47(3) of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Tribunal's order was not appealable and that the RTA had the power to increase the strength of stage carriages after proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 of the Act had been initiated.
ORDER : The petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Sarvasri Satya Pal Khetra Pal, Hari Das and Chajju Mal against the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut Region (hereinafter referred to as the K.T.A.), Faqir Chand Gupta and the Meerut-Mowana-Miranpur Motor Operators union, Meerut (hereinafter called as the Motor Operators) with a prayer that the order passed by the Tribunal on 26th November, 1863 be quashed and a suitable direction, order or writ, including that of mandamus, be issued commanding the K.T.A., the respondent No. 2, to forbear from giving effect to the order dated 26-11-1963 of the respondent No. 1 the Tribunal. There is also the usual prayer for the issue of any other writ, order or direction which this Court in the circumstances of case may deem fit and proper to issue.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of permits over the Meerut-Mowana-Miranpur route (hereinafter referred to as the route). On 23rd March, 1959, the U.T.A. Increased the strength of stage carriages on the route from 11 to 15 and invited applications for the same by means of a notification in the U.P. Gazette, dated 27th June, 1959. The petitioners as also some other applied. In the continued meeting of 30th November, 1st and 2nd December 1959, the R.T.A. decided to grant three permits to some of the displaced operators. On 28th September, 1962, the main respondents. i.e., Faqir Chand Gupta and the Motor Operators filed objections to the grant of permits to the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the strength on the route should not be increased. On 16th October 1962 the R.T.A. Increased the strength on the route from 15 to 20 stage carriages. The meeting of the R.T.A. continued on subsequent dates and on 24th October, 1962 permits were granted to the petitioners. The respondents Faqir Chand and the Motor Operators filed an appeal before the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the strength could not have been increased from 15 to 20 at the stage of proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Tribunal allowed the appeal on 26th November, 1963 and directed the K.T.A. to reconsider the matter and grant only one permit on the oasis that not 20 but 15 was the strength on the route. It is against that order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court.
3. I have heard Sarvasrl S.C. Khare and S.K. Dhaon for the petitioners and Sarvasri S.N. Kacker and D.P. Naithani for the respondents Faqir Chand and the Motor Operators. Sri H.N. Seth, the Junior Standing counsel also appeared before me and stated that he Had received no instructions from the Government in the case.
4. Sri Dhaon, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has made the following submission : That the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record in remanding the case by taking an erroneous view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash, AIR 1963 SC 64.
5. If the instant case is covered by AIR 1963 SC 64 then obviously this writ petition must fail and the order of the Tribunal must be upheld. It is, however, necessary to see what actually their Lordships decided in that case. The facts of that case were that a new route was advertised by the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority in July, 1957 and applications were invited for permanent stage carriage permits in respect of two vacancies on the route. A number of persons applied. The R.T.A. granted permits to Abdul Mateen and another person. The matter was taken up in appeal to the appellate authority but the appeal failed. Sudhapar Sharma, one of the respondents before the Supreme Court, moved the Patna High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court quashed the order of the appellate authority sent the case bade to it fo
