KAN SINGH, ETC. versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS, ETC.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 27-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
KAN SINGH, ETC. 
v. 
STAIB TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 
OTHERS, ETC. 
OCTOBER, 27 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, K.N. SINGH AND 
S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act-Renewal of Stage carriage permits under 
section 58 thereof-Grant of fresh permits. 
The appellants filed applications for renewal of their stage car-
riage permits on a route in Rajasthan, under section 58 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act. At the same time, the Rajasthan State Road Corporation 
(Corporation) moved applications for the grant offresh permits to it for 
A 
B 
c 
the same route. Both the applications for renewal of permits and the 
applications for fresh permits, were heard together by the Regional D 
Transport Authority (R.T.A.) which reserved its orders thereon. The 
R.T.A. passed orders in the matters after a year of the hearing, reject-
ing the renewal applications of the appellants and granting fresh permits 
to the Corporation. The R.T.A. had, during the intervening period of 
one year, held several other proceedings and meetings in connected 
matters of which no notice and no opportunity had been given to the E 
appellants whereas the Corporation was a party to all those meetings 
and discussions before the R. T.A. 
Against the orders of the R. T. A., the appellants filed appeals 
before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (S.T.A.T.).- The F 
S.T.A.T. dismissed the appeals. The appellants moved the High Court by 
writ petitions against the order of the S.T .A. T. The High Court (Single 
Judge) dismissed the writ petitions. Further appeals by the appellants to 
the Division Bench of the High Court were also dismissed. The appel-
lants moved this Court by special leave. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court, 
G 
'-"'\ 
HELD: The principal issue to be decided by the R.T.A. 
was whether the claims of the Corporation for fresh permits had pre-
cedence over the claims of the appellants for the renewal of their 
permits. [643E] 
H 
641 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants have not had an opportunity of putting forward 
'r"-
their contentions and of being heard before the R.T.A. in the various 
proceedings/meetings held by the R. T.A. during the period of one year 
following the reservation of orders by it on the applications of . 
the Appellaats and the Corporation. The principles of .natural justice 
were flouted by the R. T .A. by its failure to apprise the appellants 
B of what bad transpired at the meetings/discussions held in their 
absence. (6460-F] 
)-
The appellants' applications and the applications of the Corpora- · 
tion require to be considered and disposed of afresh by the R. T.A. in \ 
"'
c 
the light of the observations made by the Court. [6488, 649Al 
•. 
Sher Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 200, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE J(JRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2603-
2605 of 1987. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.1986 of the Rajasthan 
High Court in D.B. Special Appeal No. 889, 975 and 1135 of 1986. 
G.L. Sanghi and Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Appellants. 
Shanti Bhushan and S.K. Jain for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATHAN, J. Special Leave granted. Appeals are dis-
-
posed of by this order. 
f 
The three appellants had been granted permits on a route from 
· 
Bhadra to Hissar via Adampur. This route lay both in the State of 
_)....-
Rajasthan and in the State of Haryana and was thus an inter-State 
route. When the permits were about to expire the petitioners filed 
applications for their renewal in accordance with the provisions of 
section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). At 
G 
the same time, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') also moved applications 
before the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, for the grant of 
~· 
fresh permits to it on the same route. The applications for renewal of 
r 
permits made by the petitioners as well as the applications for the 
grant of permits by the Corporation were heard together by the Re-
H 
gional Transport Authority, Bikaner (R.T.A.) on several dates, the 
.
KAN SINGH v. S.T.A.T. [RANGANATHAN, J.] 
643 
last of which was the 6th of November, 1981. On that date, orders 
were reserved by the R.T.A. The R.T.A., however, passed its order 
only on 27th November, 1982, about a year after the date of the 
hearing. It rejected the renewal applications of the petitioners and 
granted permits to the Corporation in respect of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.