The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no provision for a second appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the entitlement to be heard by the Appellate Authority is subject to compliance with the provisions of the Act.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus for directing the State Government to arrange for the hearing of the appeal presented by the Petitioner on 22-2-1952 or in the alternative for setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16-2-1952, setting aside the orders of the Regional Transport Authority dated 25-6-1951.

2. The Petitioner carries on business of motor transport and has been holding since 1940 permits from the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, to ply stage carriages on the Bilaspur-Mungeli route. The non-applicants 1 and 2 also applied for permits to run stage carriages on the same route. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the applications on the ground that there was no further scope for running of other stage carriages. The Mahakoshal Transport Service, Raipur, preferred an appeal which was heard by the Appellate Authority consisting of three members including the Chairman. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and granted the permit applied for to the non-applicant No. 1. Against that order of the Appellate Authority the Petitioner preferred a second appeal to the State Government purporting to be under Rule 72 read with Section 64, Motor Vehicles Act. By the memorandum, dated 28-3-1952, the Petitioner was informed that no appeal lay to Government against the order passed by the Appellate Authority. This application is directed against the order holding that the second appeal aforesaid filed by the Petitioner was untenable. The alternative prayer is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground chiefly that the Petitioner was not heard though he was, a s claimed by him, most vitally interested in the matter.

3. The question whether the second appeal filed by the Petitioner to the Government at all lay, must depend upon the provisions of Section 64, Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rules 72 and 73 framed under the Act. Section 64 provides for a right of appeal by the aggrieved parts' from certain orders of the Provincial or Regional Transport Authority specified in the section, but it speaks of only one appeal and no second appeal. But on behalf of the Petitioner, it was argued that Rule 72 contemplated an appeal from the orders of the Provincial Transport Authority. That is so, but those are orders not passed on appeal but original orders made by the Transport Authority under the provisions of Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of Section 64 of the Act. It will be noticed that not only the Regional Transport Authority but also the Provincial Transport Authority have been - clothed with powers to pass original orders contemplated by Sections 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54(d), 55, 56, 57(2), (3), (4), (5) and (7), 58(1) and 62 of the Act. Hence, both the Regional Transport Authority and the Provincial Transport Authority have got co-ordinate jurisdiction in certain matters enumerated in those sections. That is to say those provisions contemplate making of original orders by those two Authorities. Where an original order has been passed by a Regional Transport Authority under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Section 64 of the Act, Rule 73 has made provision for an appeal to be heard by the Chairman and two members of the Provincial Transport Authority appointed by the Chairman from a panel and they have been denominated as "The Appellate Authority" by Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 73(1). On the other hand, where an original, order has been passed by the Provincial. Transport Authority, the appeal has to be heard by the Provincial Government (now the State Government) or 'Tribunal' appointed under Sub-rule (b) of Rule 72. Hence reading, Rules 72 and 73 together, an appeal may be heard by the (i) "Appellate Authority" or (ii) by the "Provincial Government" or (iii) by the "Tribunal" according as the order appealed from has been passed by a Regional Transport Authority or by Provincial Transport Authority