LexLAKSHMI NARAIN AGARWAL versus STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c 635 LAKSHMI NARAIN AGARWAL v. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, U.P. & ANR. September 26, 1967 (J. C. SHAH, S. M. SJKRI AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), ss. 47(3) and 64A-Regiona! Transport Authority if should consider representations of ea'isting operator before passing order under s. ·47(3~rder under s. 47(3) if revisable undei s. 64A. Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 13&-:- Discretion und<r. The Regional Transport Authority, by an order under s. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, fixed the number of stage carriages, by increasing their numb€r on a particular route. The appellant, an existing operator, filed a revision against that order to the State Transport Authority, under s. 64A, but the State Transport Auth1> rity held that a revision did not lie. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court dismissed it, holding D that: (1) at the stage of s. 47(3). existing operators were not entitled to be heard by the Regional T1•ansport Authority, and (2) since thei order of the Regional "I:ransport Authority was gOod on merits, i~ was not necessary to decide whether a revision lay to the State Transport Authority. In appeal to this Court, lliw: (1) Unlike. s. 47(1), s. 47(3) does not say expressly that E representations could be made by existing operators and others. The expression in s. 47(3) that 'the.· Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to the matters mentioned in suh-s. (l)', only means that the Authority shall ·have regard to the matters menioned in sub-els. (a) to (f) of s. 47(1) and has nothing to do the right of mak- ing representations. [638F-H] (2) But whether or not an existing operator has an implied right F to be heard before an order under s. 47(3) is made he can be sggriev. ed by an order made under that section increasing or decreasing the number of stage carriages depending on the circumstances of · the case, and has therefore a right of revision under s. 64A, the only condition for filing a revision being that it should be against an order_ made by the Regional Transport Authority against which no appeal lies. [639C-D, F-H] · G Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pande!I, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 523, re- ferred to. (3) Since a revision could be filed under s. 64A against the order under s. 47(3) the aggrieved operator need not approach the Region- al Transport Authority first to review its order. [640B-C] (4) The High Court should have directed the State Transport B Authority to dispose of on merits the revision petition against tlie order under s. 47 (3), and not gone into its merits itself, but, in view of the time that lapsed since the order was passed (five years, dur- ing which the demand for stage carriages must have increased). this Court would not interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction under · Art. 136. [640C-E] 636 SUPREllE COURT REPORTS [I 968] 1 s.o.a. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 636 of A 1967. Appeal by special kavc from the judgment and order dated November 11. 1966 of the Allahabad High Court. Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 226 of 1963. S. T. Desai, J. P. Goyal, D. N. Jha and G. S. Chatterjee. for B the appellant. Sari<><> Prashad and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment. dated November 11, J 966. of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the o appellant seeking to quash the order of the Slate Transport Autho· rity, dated March 20/21, 1963. The State Transport Authority had by this order rejected the appellant's revision petition against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that a mere decision of the Regional Transport Authority limiting the number of stage carriages under s. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles D Act, 1939 (IV of 1939) hereinafter referred to as the Act could not form the subject matter of a revision application. It was of the view that "when the Regional Transport Authority actually proceeds to fill up the vacancies, which it has decided to create, then the persons whose interests would be adversely affected, would have a right of representation before the Regional Trans· port Authority; and in the case of their representation being E rejected by the Regional Transport Authority the will have a right of appeal before the Stat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.