Wanchoo, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Patna High Court. Brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. It appears that a new route Gopalganj -Pahlezghat was advertised by the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority in July 1957 and applications were invited for permanent stage carriage permits and the advertisement stated that there were two vacancies on the route. A number of persons applied for the two permits and in January, 1958 the Regional Transport Authority granted permits to the appellant and another person. This order was taken in appeal to the Appellate Authority, which however failed. Thereafter Sudhakar Sharma, who is one of the respondents, before us, moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and in April 1960 the High Court quashed the order of the Appellate Authority on the basis of the judgment of this court in Ram Gopal vs. Anant Prasad (1959) 2 Suppl. SCR 692. The case then went back to the Appellate Authority for re-hearing. The Appellate Authority thereupon modified the order of the Regional Transport Authority and the permit granted to the appellant was cancelled and in his place a permit was granted to Sudhakar Sharma; the permit granted to the other person was not interfered with. Thereupon, the appellant made an application to the State Government under S. 64 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. 4 of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act No. 27 of 1950, which provides that "the State Government may, on application made to it in this behalf within 30 days of the passing of the order in the course of any proceeding taken under this Chapter by any authority or officer subordinate to it, call for the records of such proceeding and after examining such records pass such orders as it thinks fit." The application was heard by the Minister for Transport and he upheld the order of the Appellate Authority. At the same time however, he took the view that "with the introduction of bus-service in North Bihar, people are becoming more and more busminded as they have been getting cheap and quick means of transport and therefore an additional service would add to the facilities provided to the public without impairing in any way the efficiency of the existing service." Therefore, while upholding the order of the Appellate Authority cancelling the permit of the appellant and granting a permit instead to Sudhakar Sharma, he felt that the ends of Justice would be met if an additional permit was granted to the appellant, who had proved to be a desirable operator. He therefore ordered that an additional service be allowed to the appellant for the said route. Thereupon Ram Kailash Pandey who had also made an application under S. 64 A and whose application had been dismissed filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the Minister for Transport. His main contention was that the grant of an additional permit to the appellant was wholly unjustified, particularly in the face of his far superior claim. To this petition the appellant as well as the two persons to whom permits were granted and the State of Bihar, the Appellate Authority as well as the Regional Transport Authority were made parties. When the petition came to be heard before the High Court it was contended that the State Government had no power when dealing with an application under S. 64-A, to increase the number of permits to be granted from two which was the limit fixed by the Regional Transport Authority, to three, and therefore, its order granting the third permit to the appellant was without jurisdiction. This contention was accepted by the High Court, and it set aside that part of the order by which a third permit was granted to the appellant. But the High Court refused to interfere with the rest of the order granting permits to the two other persons. Thereupon, the appellant applied for a certificate to appeal to this Court, which was refused. He then moved this Court for special leave, which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.
(2.) The main question for decision in this appeal is whether the State Government acting under S. 64-A of the Bihar Amendment Act had the power to increase the number of permits for which applications had been invited by the Regional Transport Authority. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the State Government has the same power under S. 64-A as the Regional Transport Authority has, as held by this Court in Ram Gopal's case, (supra) and it was therefore open to the State Government to increase the number of permits as the Regional Transport Authority would always have the power to increase the number of permits whenever it thought necessary to do so.
(3.) In order to appreciate the arguments put forward on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Act in the matter of granting stage carriage permits. The scheme of the Act for the control of transport vehicle is to be found in Chap. IV. Section 42 provides that "no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter signed by a Regional or State Transport Authority....." Section 43 gives power to the State Government to issue directions to the State Transport Authority with respect to various matters specified therein. Section 44 provides for the constitution of Regional Transport Authorities and the State Transport Authority and powers thereof. Section 45 then provides that an application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle and this is subject to two provisos, with which however we are not concerned in the present appeal. Section 46 then provides for the form in which an application for a stage carriage permit shall be made. Then we come to S. 47 (1) which lays down certain criteria which shall be taken into consideration by a Regional Transport Authority when dealing with an application for a stage carriage permit. Section 47 (3) which is important gives power to the Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type or which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region, having regard to matters mentioned in sub-s. (1). Section 48 then provides that subject to the provisions of S. 47, the Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under S. 46, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modification as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit and also provides, subject to rules, for conditions that may be attached to a permit. Section 57 provides for the procedure in applying for and granting permits. Section 64 provides for an appeal from certain orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority within prescribed time and in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority. Then comes S. 64-A, as inserted by the Bihar Amendment Act providing for revision by the State Government.;