B. PRABHAKARA RAO versus DESARI PANAKALA RAO & OTHERS

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 1032 · Decided: 05-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
B. PRABHAKARA RAO 
v. 
DESARI PANAKALA RAO & OIBERS 
April 5, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, V. R. KRISHNA !YER & N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J · 
Motor Vehicles Act. 1947-Ss. 47 and 57-Andhra Pradesh State Tram-
port Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1971, r.15-Va/idity of. 
Tribunal-If had power to admit evidence beyond the tilnt limitttl by s. 
n~J. 
. 
Rule 15 of the Andhra Prad~h State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 
1971, states that parties to the appeal or application shall not be entitled to 
produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, before the Tribunal 
e:xcept in cases stated therein but it empowers the Tribunal to allow evidence 
o! documents to be produced or witnesses to be examined for any other sum~ 
c1ent reason. 
The Regional Transport Authority granted a stage carriage permit to the 
appellant. 
Before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal another applicant 
produced certain information against the appellant which was not mentioned 
either in his history sheet or in the representations of any party under s. 57(3) 
of the Act. 
Rejecting the appellant's objection that such new grounds could 
not be heard from an pbjector at the stage of appeal, the State Transport 
Appellate Tribunal cancelled the appellant's permit and gave it to respondent 
No. 2. 
On appeal it was contended that a representation under s. 57(4) could not 
be made at the appellate stage beyond the time limited by that section and if 
rule 15 permitted it, it violated the substantive provisions of the Act. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, 
F 
G 
H 
HEID : Rule 15 is intra vires and ·it merely makes patent what is otherwise 
l...\ 
latent in the statutory provisions. Rule 15 does not entitle parties to the appeal, 
or application to produce additional evidence but clothes the Tribunal with d.is-
cretionanr power to allow such evidence. What is received is not qua represen-
tation under s. 57(4) but qua evidence with public interest flavour. 
[1041F; 
I039Cl 
United Motor Works, A.I.R. 1964 Pat. 154 and Cumbum Roadways, A.I.R. 
1965 Mad. 79, approved. 
(a) Public interest is the paramount consideration in transport business while 
private rights apparently constitute a quasi-lis for decision. The touchstone 
of better merit is solely the ability to serve the public and the hierarchy of 
transoort tribunals. bearin~ true faith and allegiance to s. 47 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act. 1948 have the duty and, therefore, the power to consider all 
factors pertinent to the larger scheme of efficient public transport. The duplex 
scheme of the statute is the holding of a public enquiry to determine who will 
serve public interest best but ordinarily activated into that enquiry by ·private 
applicants for permits. The pro bone publico character of the hearing cannot 
be scuttled in the name of competitive individual rights and narrow procedural 
trappings. [I033E-GJ 
(b) Section 47 enjoins upan the Regional Transport Authority to have re-
gard to the presiding idea of public interest generally and iii its ramifications as 
set out ins. 47(1)(a) to (f). In addition, the RTA shall also receive repre<en-
tations as mentioned therein and take them into the reckoning. It is not as if 
the sole sollrce of decision-making materials consists of the representations made 
under s. 57(3) within the time stipulated in s. 57(4). The primary channel .ta 
the information that the RTA may gather bearing on matters touched upon 1n 
'· 47(l)(a) to (f) supplemented by facts stated in representation referred to In 
. 
1032 
I 
B. P. RAO v. D. P. RAO (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
10 33 
i. 57(3). Under s. 47 passengers' associations, police officers, local authorities 
and existing operators who may have nothing directly to do with the rivalry for 
A 
a permit have a place in the scheme and may make representations on a variety 
of· matters. 
So ~lso, in an appeal, the RTA it<;elf may be heard. 
Thus_. the 
ronsiderations going into the judicial verdict are dominated by public interest~ 
non-parties who have only to present points germane to public interest are 
allowed to represent their point of view. [1038C; !035B'Cl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.,1989 of 1975. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
28th November 1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ 
Appeal No. 1038 of 1973. 
M. N. Phadke and B. Kantarao, for the Appellant. 
B 
V. S. Desai, K. R. Chaudhury, S. L. Setia and Mrs. V. Khamw, 
C 
for Respondent No. 1. 
The 

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