IKRAM KHAN versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 31-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

459 
IKRAMKHAN 
v. 
A 
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. 
August 31, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sec. 47-Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 
Rule 108(c)-Whether considerations in Sec. 47 for grant of stage permits to be 
B 
mentioned in the order. 
The appellant and respondents No. 3 and 4 applied for the grant of non-
temporary stage carriage permits. The Regional Transport Authority granted 
the permits to the appellant and respondent No. 4 and rejected the application 
of rel>pondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal to the State Transport 
Appellate Tribunal. The notice of appeal was served upon the appellant where 
the date and time were mentioned but the place was not mentioned. Since the 
appellant did not appear the appeal was heard e»-iparte. 
The Tribunal set aside 
the order of the Transport Authority and granted the permit in favour of 
C 
respondent No. 3. A writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the 
Tribunal was dismissed summarily by the learned Single Judge by a long speak-
ing order. A !Division ·Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 
In an appeal by Special Leave the appellant cohtended : 
l. The notice as required by rule 108(c) of the Rajasthan' Motor< Vehiclee 
Rules, 1951 served on the appellant was not proper notice since it did not 
mention the place ofi the hearing of the appeal. 
2. The Tribunal did not consider the relevant matters as mentioned in 
D 
section 47(a) to (f). 
HELD : 1. The omission to mention the place is not fatal. The appe\lan( is 
a resident of Jaipur where also the office of the Tribunal is situated. He Was a 
Stage Carriage permit holder and not a stranger to the Transport authorities. In 
fact, hearing of the appeal was adjourned twice evenj after the date mentioned 
in tho notice. [460 Fl 
2. The Regional Transport Authority did not make any reference to the 
relevant considerations under section 47 of the Act. The Tribunal on the other 
E 
hand has considered various aspects of the matter as required by section 47 al-
though without a reference to that section. The Tribunal and the learned Single 
Judge duly considered the whole matter and the Division Bench was justified in 
summarily rejecting the special appeal. 
[461 B-D] 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 874 of 1975. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 5-3-75 
of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1975. 
M. C. Bhandare, S. M. Jain, S. K. Jain and Mohd. Fasiuddin, for 
the Appellant. 
P. C. Bhartari, for Respondent No. 3. 
K. J. John, for Respondent No. 4. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GOSWAMI, J.-The appellant and the respondents 3 and 4 were the 
former existing stage-carriage operators of Jaipur-Sainthal route which 
was nationalised on January 25, 1973. All of them applied for the 
grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits of Jaipur-Padampura 
route as alternative route permits. The Regional Transport Authority, 
Jaipur (briefly the RTA) by its order of July 22, 1974, granted non-
ternporary permits to the appellant and respondent No. 4 and rejected 
the application of respondent No. 3. 
That led to an appeal to the 
State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Jaipur, Rajasthan, by respondent 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977) 1 S.C.R. 
No. 3. The notice of appeal was served upon the appellant but since 
he did not appear the appeal was heard ex-parte and by its order dated 
December 17, 1974, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside 
the order of the RTA and granted the permit in favour of respondent 
No. 3. The appellant filed a writ application under Article 226 of the 
Constitution before the Rajasthan High Court and the learned single 
Judge by a. rather long speaking order dismissed the same summarily. 
A further appeal by the appellant to the Division Bench met with the 
same fate. The High Court also refused to grant certificate to appeal 
to this Court. Hence this appeal by special leave. 
Mr. Bhandarc. the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, sub-
mits that the order of the State Trans_port Appellate Tribunal (briefly 
the Tribunal) is invalid inasmuch as the appeal was heard ill: the ab-
sence of a proper notice of appeal as required under the law. He drawi, 
our attention to rule l08(c) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules. 
1951, which reads as follows :-
''Upon receipt of an appeal preferred in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.