The appellant thereafter preferred the present appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.
The petition came up for admission before a single Judge of the Madras High Court who summarily rejected the petition.
There were forty two applications received in response to this invitation.
On this view, the Tribunal by an order dated 11th June, 1968 allowed the appeal of the first respondent and setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting stage carriage permit to the appellant, remitted the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for being proceeded with in accordance with Law The appellant challenged the validity of this order made by the Tribunal by a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madras.
This led to the filing of a letters patent appeal before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court The Division Bench companysidered various decisions of this Court and held that it was number companypetent to the Regional Transport Authority to exercise the power to grant stage carriage permit under Section 48 1 read with Section 57 3 without first fixing the limit of the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted on the route under Section 47 3 and since in the present case there was numberorder Under Section 47 3 the Regional Transport Authority bad numberpower to grant stage carriage permit under Section 48 1 read with Section 57 3 and the order granting stage carriage permit to the appellant was had a rightly held by the Tribunal.
The Regional Transport Authority companysidered these applications as also the representations received in companynection with them and by an order dated 4th November, 1967 granted a stage carriage permit to the appellant to ply an additional bus on the route.
At the hearing of the appeal, the first respondent raised, for the first time, a companytention that the Regional Transport Authority had numberjurisdiction to proceed with companysideration of the applications under Section 48 1 read with Section 57 3 since numberprior order limiting the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted on the route was made under Section 47 3 .
The Tribunal allowed this companytention to be raised, though it had number been taken before the Regional Transport Authority, and taking the view that it was well founded, held that numbervalid order limiting the number of stage carriages for which permits might be granted on the route had been made by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 3 before companysidering the applications and representations in companynection therewith and the order made by the Regional Transport Authority granting stage carriage permit to the appellant was, therefore, without jurisdiction.
The question arising in this appeal lies in a narrow companypass and stands companycluded by a recent decision of this Court in Mohd.
The Regional Transport Authority accordingly issued a numberification under Section 57, Sub section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 inviting applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit for one additional bus on this route.
The Division Bench accordingly upheld the order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
This decision was given in a bunch of appeals against the judgments of the Madras High Court in similar cases where the same Division Bench, which decided the appeal in the present case, took the view that since there was numbervalid order made by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 3 prior to the grant of stage carriage permits, the orders of the Regional Transport Authority granting such stage carriage permits to one or the other applicants were invalid.
The first respondent being aggrieved by the refusal of the Regional Transport Authority to grant a stage carriage permit to him preferred an appeal to the Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 64 1 a of the Act.
Ibrahim v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras .
This Court, speaking through Ray, J., as he then was, after referring to the earlier decisions of the Court, stated the law on the subject in the following terms This Court in Abdul Mateens 1973 3 SCR 523 case said that the general Older by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 3 of the Act in regard to the limit of number of stage carriage permits can be modified only by the Regional Transport Authority when exercising the jurisdiction under Section 47 3 of the Act The Regional Transport Authority while acting under Section 48 of the Act in regard to the grant of permits has numberjurisdiction and Authority under Section 47 3 of the Act In other words, the limit fixed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 3 of the Act cannot be altered by the Regional Transport Authority at the time of grant of permits, it is, therefore, established that the determination of limit of number of permits is to be made before the grant of permits That is why subject to the provisions of Section 47 of the Act meaning there by that the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits is subject to the determination of the limit of number of permits under Section 47 3 of the Act This Court stated the legal position in M s. Jayaram Motor Services case CA.
95 of 1965, decided on 27 10 1967 and said it is therefore clear that the authority has first to fix the limit and after having done so companysider the application or the representations in companynection therewith in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 57 of the Act Again in the case of R. Obliswami Naidu 1969 1 SCR 730 this Court companysidered the submission in that case as whether the Regional Transport Authority companyld decide the number of permits while companysidering applications for permits.
It appears that a traffic survey had been companyducted during the period from 1st June, 1966 to 15th July, 1966 on various routes in Coimbatore District and it was found as a result of this traffic survey that the load on the route Pollachi to Tiruppur via Kamanaickenpalayam and Paladam was heavy and it was, therefore, decided to introduce one more bus on this route.
N. Bhagwati, J. This appeal, brought by special leave, relates to grant of a stage carriage permit for the route Pollachi to Tiruppur via Kamaoaickenopalayam and Palladam in Coimbatore District.
