ABDUL REHMAN AND ORS. versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 08-03-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• • 
I 
45 3 
ABDUL REHMAN AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS. 
March 8, 1978 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J 
(.'onstitution of India, 1950, Art. 
226-lurisdiction of the High Court to 
interfete under Art. 226 with the orders of the transport authorities in the grant 
of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 
A'1otor l'clticles Act, 1939, Section 47-Scope of. 
A 
B 
While considering the applications including those of the appellants for the 
C 
grant of additional stage carriage 
permit on 1be 
Meerut-iVIay;ana-Miranpur 
route which was increased from 11 of 15 in 1959, the 
Regional Transport 
Authority, purporting to exercise its authority of grant of the permi~ under 
set::tion 48 read with section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, modified the 
limit of nu,mbe1 of stagel carria,.ge permits by i'llcreasing it to 20 against the 
settled law or the subject, and disallowed the applications of the appellants as 
\Veil as the representations of Fakir Chand Gupta and others. Against this order 
Fakir Ch,aud Guptai and a few others including Harish Chandra Misra preferred 
D 
an appeal 10 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which, following the deci-
sioo of this Court in [1963] 3 SCR 523, by its order dated November 26, 1963 
set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and remanded 
the 
matter to the hitter for filling up the six vacancies. 1'en other appeals prefer-
red by others, later, 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 29, 1963 in the appeal of Fakir Chand Gupta and others. 
At its 
meetings held on August 28-29, 1964, the Regional Transport Authority coii-
sidered the applications of 17 persons whose cases had 
been remanded a-nd 
E 
refused to consider the appellants' on the ground that they had not appealed 
against the order rejecting their applications· in 1962. 'fbe appellants iind Harish 
Chandra Misra, thereupon preferred four separate appea•ls under section 64A 
of the Mote: \'ehicles Act to the State Transport Tribunal. l)uring the pen-
dency of the appeals, Meerut-Mawana-Miranpur route became an inter-regional 
(amalgamated) route by its extension upto Bijnor. 
Thereupon, all the four 
appellants applied to the Tribunal for ime'l1.dments of their original applica-
tions and for grant of permits for the said amalgamated route. 
According to 
their prayer, the Tribunal allowed their appeals and directed 
the 
Regional 
F 
Transport Apthority that they be allotted one re.gular stage carriage permit each 
for the an1algamated route. Raihim-Ud-Din, an existing operator on the Meerut-
Mawana-Mirctripur route filed a petition before the High Court for issuance of 
a \.Vrit quashing the order gr-anti•.1g permits in favour of the appellants and 
H~rish Chandra Misra. The petition was partly allowed hy a single Judge of 
High Court quashing the order granting the permits ot the appellants ori the 
ground that siince they had omitted to appeal against the order of the Regional 
Transport Authority rejecting their applications for the grant of permits in 1962, 
G 
their case had come to a.in end and they could not be granted any permits. The 
Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellants failed. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
HELD : I. The High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution should be 
reluctant to interfere or disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities 
or tribunals under the Act especialJy when the legislature has entrusted the task 
of granting or renewing the stage carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities 
or tribunals v,rhich are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure and 
H 
practice and the relevant matters which should engage their attentic'il under the 
provisions contained in the Act. 
In dealing with applications 
for writs 
of 
certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. in cases of the present kind, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 3 s.c.R. 
the I-Iigh Court must not exercise the jurisdictio1.J of an appellate court a.n.d the 
findings or conclusions on questions Of fact could hardly be 
re-examined 
or 
disturbed by it unless the well recognised tests in that behalf were satisfied. 
[458 A·D] 
Kishanchand ]\larsinhdas Bhatia v. State Transport Appellate Authority turd 
Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 695, reiterated. 
· 
Sri J<an1a Vilas Service

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.