- (1.) In this group of special leave petitions and writ petitions, constitutional validity of Section 47 (1-H) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('Act' for short) directly or indirectly figures. With a view to focussing attention on the context in which the question is raised, it may be advantageous to refer to the factual matrix in S. L. P. 6605/83, in which the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court repelled the challenge. We would first deal with the principal challenge common to all petitions and then dispose of specific contention raised in other petitions clubbed together here. For representative facts we would refer to S. L. P. 6605/83. Re : S. L. P. No. 6605/83 : Petitioner Sher Singh is the holder of a stage carriage permit on Behror-Rewari via Barrod, Shahjahanpur inter-State route. A portion of the route from Bahror to National Highway No. 8 via Barrod and Shahjahanpur 28 k.ms. in length passes through Rajasthan State and the rest of the portion of the route 22 k.ms. in length lies in Haryana State. It is thus an inter-State route. Petitioner holds 12 permits for operating on the aforementioned route. Of the 12 permits, the period prescribed under 8 permits expired and the petitioner applied for the renewal of the permits under S. 58 of the Act. Regional Transport Authority granted renewal of the permits up to and inclusive of January 20, 1981. The petitioner again applied for renewal of the permits on December 29, 1980. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, fifth respondent ('Corporation' for short) made an application to the Regional Transport Authority on April 20, 1981 for stage carriage permit on the aforementioned route. This application was as usual advertised. The application of the petitioner for the renewal of his permits accordingly was taken up for consideration on April 30, 1981. Pending the consideration of the application for renewal of permits, petitioner was granted temporary permits under Section 62 for a period of four months commencing from the date of the expiry of the earlier permit. The temporary permits were thus to expire on May 20, 1981. And these temporary permits were further renewed for a period of 4 months. Thereafter the application of the petitioner for renewal of his permits and the application for stage carriage permit made by the Corporation were taken up for consideration. An objection was raised by the Corporation that as the route in question is an inter-State route, it is entitled to permit in preference to the petitioner in view of the provision contained in Section 47 (1-H) of the Act. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the provision contained in S. 58, the petitioner is entitled to renewal of his permits in preference to the Corporation, which has made an application for a fresh permit. This contention found favour with the Regional Transport Authority and the renewal of permits was refused to the petitioner and the permits were granted to the Corporation. This decision was questioned in a writ petition filed by the present petitioner in which the only contention raised was that the preference was accorded to the Corporation for grant of a permit under Section 47 (1-H) of the Act which is constitutionally invalid, and once no such preference could be granted, the preference in favour of a renewal of permit under Section 58 should have a precedence and the renewal ought to have been granted.
(2.) It was contended before the learned single Judge of the High Court that S. 47 (1-H) is violative both of Art. 14 and Article 19 (1) (g) and is thus constitutionally invalid. That was the only contention canvassed before the learned single Judge which did not find favour with him as well as the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Hence the petitioner filed this petition for special leave. A notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent and it was directed that the petition be finally disposed of at this stage as the only question raised is one of law and no investigation of facts is necessary.
(3.) A brief reference to the relevant provisions of the Act may help us in demarcating the contours of controversy with precision. Chapter IV of the Act contains provisions for control of transport vehicles. For regulating the transport business, a scheme for granting different types of permits has been statutorily prescribed. There are various Kinds of permits contemplated by the Act such as stage carriage permit, contract carriage permit, all India tourist permit, special permit, permits for transport of goods etc. Various authorities have been constituted under the Act for the purpose of implementing the Act. Power has been conferred upon specific authorities for granting different kinds of permits. Section 47 prescribes procedure which the Regional Transport Authority has to follow while examining and deciding an application for stage carriage permit. Section 47 was specifically amended by Act 47 of 1978 which came into force on January 16, 1979. By the amending Act, subsections (1-A) to (1-H) were added to S. 47. The focus of controversy is on sub-sec. (1-H). Sub-section (1-H) reads as under : "(1-H) : Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, an application for stage carriage permit from a State Transport undertaking for operating in any inter-State route shall be given preference over all other applications : Provided that the authority shall not grant a permit under this sub-section unless it is satisfied that the State transport undertaking would be able to operate in the inter-State route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in any notified area or notified route as is referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 68-D where the undertaking operates the service. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, 'inter-State route' means any route lying contiguously in two or more States." A bare reading of the provision contained in sub-sec. (1-H) shows that where a Corporation set up under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 is one of the applicants for a stage carriage permit on an inter-State route, then as between other applicants and a State Transport Undertaking ('Undertaking' for short), the latter will have preference over others. Routine statutory procedure prescribed in Section 47 for grant of a stage carriage permit requires the Regional Transport Authority which has the power to grant permit before selecting who amongst the numerous applicants should be granted the permit must take into consideration various things that are enumerated in Section 47. Fair approach would be that after examining the credentials of every applicant, the Regional Transport Authority shall grant permit to the person who in its opinion would best serve the travelling public. The Regional Transport Authority upon a judicious consideration of merits and demerits of every applicant must in a fair and reasonable manner decide who amongst tile applicants would perform the duty and carry out the obligations under the permit. However, sub-section (1-H) carves out an exception to this generally well-recognised principle that an administrative authority has to adopt while exercising the power conferred upon it by the statute, that where an application for a stage carriage permit on an inter-State route is made by all intending applicants which includes a State Transport undertaking, its application must be accorded preference. But while granting preference, the Regional Transport Authority must satisfy itself that the Corporation would be able to operate on the inter-State route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in any notified area or notified route as is referred to in sub-sec. (3) of Section 68-D where the undertaking operates the service.;