LexJEEWAN NATH WAHAL & ORS. versus SHEIKH MAHFOOZ JAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
243
JEEWAN NATH WAHAL 41: ORS.
v.
SHEIKH MAHFOOZ JAN & ORS.
SeJJfember 8, 1969
[J. M. SJ'fuLAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, AND I. D. DUA,. JJ.]
Motor Vehi~/&s Act 4 of 1939, ss. 47 ('.>), 48,' 57 and 64 (a)-
A_oplication far permit for a new route-RTA deciding that new rou~
not necessary-Whether order appeaJable
to
Ap,,.lla!e Tribunal under
s. 64 (•)-Order is under s. 47(3) and not under section 48 and therefore
not appealable.
The appellants, among others appliiocf to the 'Regional
Transport
Authority for pe,rmits to operate a direct bus service on a route in Meerut
District, U.P., which had no direct' passenger bus service.
After hearing
the appellants and those who opposed them, the Regional Transport
Authontv was satisfied that there was no sufficient demand for such a
direct service, and therefore, there was no justification for opening, the
proposed new route.
Thel' applications of 'the
appellants and ot'her
applicants were therefure rejected.
The Appellate Tribunal reversed the
order of the, Regional Transport Authority and granted permits to the
thr<>o appellants.
The respondents therefore filed writ petitions in ·the
High CDurt for quashi~g the order of the Tribunal contending that no
appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority lay under
'· 64(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act
1939 and that
consequently,
the
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to ente.rtain such appeals, and grant permits
to the
appellants.
A Sin"gle
Bench dismissed the petitions
but
the
Division Bench held that no appeal against the order of the
Regi-onal
Transport Authority lay under s. 64(a) and accordingly, allowed the
writ petitions and quashed the Tribunal's order. On appeal to this Court,
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed.
The docisions of this Court clearly lay down that th• R.T.A. has
first to make "a general order" as stated in Abdul Mateen's case under
s. 47 (3) as to the number of permits necessary for a new route an<f
he cannot exceed that limit while he is at the next stage when he con-
siders under s. 48 re.ad with s. 56(7) as to who ar:.ong the applicants
should be granted the permit or pennits.
Such a 'general order' li1niting
the number of permits presupposes that he has come to a decision that
the new route either proposed by him or by an applicant or applicants
is necessary in the public interest.
If the order as to the number of
permits is a 'general order' passed under s. 47(3) with which the indivi-
dual applications are not concerned and is anterior
to the stage under
s. 48 when applications of the individual operators are taken into consi-
deration, and therefore is not appealable ·under •. 64 (a) it must follow
ll fortiori that the decision as to whether th.e ne'.W route is necessary
or not is equally 'a general order' arrived at either earlief or contempo-
rane.eusly with the decision as to the number of permits. If the latter
order is not appealable, it cannot be that the former i.e. the decision
whether the new route is necessary or not, is not an e.qually
1gencral
order' with which individual applications are not coftCemed and can
appeal against i\ under s. 64 (a).
However, the powers of the R.T.A. in connection with the decision
as to whether a proposed route should be openea or not are not un-
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
limitoed and unbridled.
The po\\'er is subject to the. revisional po\1,:er of
A
the State Government under s. 64-A. [250 E-251 CJ
Abdul Mateen v. R. K. Pandev [1963] 3 S.C.R. 523; M/s Java Ram
Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinani C.A. 95 of
1965, dee.
on
October
'27, 1967; R. Ohliswa111i Naidu v. The Add!. State
Transort Appellate
Tril>unal Madras C.A. 1426 of 1968, dee. on Feb. 17, 1969, applied.
CtVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1278 of
B
1969.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 13, 1969
of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
1060 of
1967.
C. K. Daphtary,. Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Davon and S. Bagga,
C
for the appellants.
H. R. Gokhaie, J. P. Goyal, llyos Hussain and V. C. Prashar,
for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shelat, J.
The question arising in this appeal, by certifitate,
may be stated thus :
When an applicant applies for a permit to run a
passenger bus service on the ground that the route for
wl<.:h he applies, thou,,,h one .not yet opened, is neces-
sar'. in public interest, Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.