- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated August 27, 1075 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 208 of 1973 upholding the order dated August 28, 1973 of a single Judge of that Court whereby he quashed the order dated May, 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting regular permits in favour of the appellants for amalgamated route known as Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur, Meerut-Bijnor via Mawana-Meerut-Mawana, Khurd-Phalauda, Meerut-Masuri-Lawar-Phalauda, Meerut-Masuri-Lawar, and Khatauli-Phalauda-Mawana - Makdoompur route.
(2.) The dispute as stated in the judgment and order under appeal relates to Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route, the limit of the number of stage carriage permits whereof was raised from 11 to 15 in 1959. Out of the additional four permits which thus became available for grant, the Regional Transport Authority granted three to the displaced persons and invited applications to fill up the remaining one vacancy. In response to the invitation, the appellants also applied for grant of the stage carriage permits for the said route. While considering the applications and exercising its authority of grant of the permits under section 48 read with section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the Regional Transport Authority modified the limit of number of the stage carriage permits and increased it from 15 to 20 which it could not do in view of the law settled by this Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey (1963) 3 SCR 523 : (AIR 1963 SC 64), M/s. Jaya Ram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam (Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1965 decided on Oct. 27, 1967)* Baluram v. The State Transport Appellate Authority. Madhya Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 727 of 1965 decided on March 22, 1968) and R. Obliswami Naidu v. The Addl. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (1969) 3 SCR 730 : (AIR 1969 SC 1130) and granted the six permits to (1) Mohd. Matin Sheikh (2) Satwati Devi. Sardar Singh Chidda Singh and Mahendra Singh, (3) Satyapal Khetre Pal, (4) Ramesh Mohan Sharma, (5) Chajju Mal and (6) Hari Dass, disallowing the applications of the appellants and some others including Harish Chandra Mishra and rejecting the representations made by Fakir Chand Gupta and others. Against this order of the Regional Transport Authority, Fakir Chand Gupta and a few others including Harish Chandra Mishra preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated November 26, 1963 set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and remanded the matter to the latter for filling up the six vacancies after following the procedure referred to in the decision of this Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey (AIR 1963 SC 64) (supra) where it was held (at p. 67 of AIR): * Reported in (1967) 2 SCWR 857 "Section 47 (3) gives power to the Regional Transport Authority having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-s. (1) to limit the number of stage carriages generally etc. It would be clear therefore that when the Regional Transport Authority proceeds in the manner provided in S. 57 to consider an application for a stage carriage permit and eventually decides either to grant it or not to grant it under S. 48 its order has to be subject to the provisions of S. 47, including S. 47 (3) by which the Regional Transport Authority is given the power to limit the number of stages generally etc. Therefore, if the Regional Transport Authority has limited the number of stage carriages by exercising its power under S. 47 (3), the grant of permits by it under S. 48 has to be subject to the limit fixed under S. 47 (3). We cannot accept the contention on behalf of the appellant that when the Regional Transport Authority following the procedure provided in S. 57, comes to grant or refuse a permit it can ignore the limit fixed under S. 47 (3), because it is also the authority making the order under S. 48. Sec. 47 (3) is concerned with a general order limiting stage carriages generally etc., on a consideration of matters specified in S. 47 (1). That general order can be modified by the Regional Transport Authority, if it so decides, one way or the other. But the modification of that order is not a matter for consideration when the Regional Transport Authority is dealing with the actual grant of permits under S. 48 read with S. 57, for at that stage what the Regional Transport Authority has to do is to choose between various applicants who may have made applications to it under S. 46 read with S. 57. That in our opinion is not the stage where the general order passed under S. 47 (3) can be re-considered for the order under S. 48 is subject to the provisions of S. 47, which includes S. 47 (3) under which a general order limiting the number of stage carriages etc., may have been passed."
(3.) Ten other persons whose applications for grant of permits were rejected also preferred appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal but the same were dismissed as infructuous by the Tribunal vide its order dated October 17, 1966 in view of the order already passed by it on November 26, 1963 in the appeal of Fakir Chand Gupta and others. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority at its meetings held on August 28 and 29, 1964 considered the applications of 17 persons whose cases had been remanded to it but refused to consider the cases of the appellants on the ground that they had not appealed against the order rejecting their applications in 1962. The Regional Transport Authority also rejected the application of Harish Chandra Mishra though his matter had been remanded by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra thereupon preferred four separate appeals under section 64 of the Act to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeals. Meerut-Mowana-Miranpur route became an inter regional (amalgamated) route by its extension up to Bijnor. Thereupon, the appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra applied to the Tribunal for amendment of their original applications and for grant of permits for the said amalgamated route. Acceding to their prayer, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed that the appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra be allotted one regular stage carriage permit each for the amalgamated route mentioned above. Aggrieved by this order, Rahim Uddin, an existing operator on the Meerut-Mowana-Miranpur route filed a petition before the High Court for issuance of a writ quashing the order granting permits in favour of the appellants and Harish Chandra Mishra. The said petition was allowed by a single Judge of the High Court in so far as the appellants were concerned on the ground that since the appellants had omitted to appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting their applications for grant of permits in 1962, their case had come to an end and they could not be granted any permit. Dissatisfied with this judgment and order, the appellants preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated August 28, 1973. It is against this judgment and order that the appellants have come up in appeal to this Court.;