MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus MANGRULPIR JT. MOTOR SERVICE (P) LTD., &: ORS.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 29-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 
CORPORATION 
v. 
MANGRULPIR JT. MOTOR SERVICE (P) LTD., &: ORS. 
April 29, 1971 
[J. M. SHBLAT AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
181 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ss. 46, 47, 57-Bombay Motor Vehicles 
Ru/'1, 1959-App/ications for 
permit-Power of 
Regipnal 
Tran~port 
Authority to call for additional information and to publish it for objec· 
tions-Qualifications of applicants to be considered as on date of app/ica ... 
lion for permit or as on date of consideration of applications. 
C 
Tho respondents were bus operators who applied for renewal of per-
mits which were to expire on different dates between February 28, 1966 
and September 30, 1966. 
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Cor· 
poration (appellant herein) applied for grant of substantive permits in 
lieu of the renewal applications made by the respondents. 
On account 
of litigation the applications of the parties could not be decided for several 
D 
years. At the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on July 29, 
1970 when all the applications were placed for consideration on merits, 
a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the appellant to the effect 
that in view of the unusually long time which had elapsed since the 
making of the applications in 1965-66 it had become necessary to call 
for and consider up to date information about all the applicants. The Re-
gional Transport Authority directed all the applicants to file additional in-
formation relating to matters covered by columns 10 to 16 and 19 of the 
E 
.Prescribed form of the application by August 21, 1970 and directed their 
publication and invitation of objections thereon. All the applicants inclu-
ding the respondents tendered additional up to -date information about 
their operations in terms of the order of the Regional Transport Autho-
rity. 
The additional information was pubUshed and objections thereto 
were received. The Authority posted all the applications for consideration 
on merit at a meeting due to be held on November 26, 1970. The res-
F 
pendents meanwhile moved the High Court for an order on the Regional 
Transport Authority to forbear from taking into account up to date infor~ 
mation while judging the merits of the contending operators and to enjoin 
the said Authority to consider the applications only on the basis of the in-
formation originally filed in the year 1965-66. In appeal by special leave 
to this Court the questions for consideration were (i) whether the Re-
gional Transport Authority had power to call for additional information as 
it did ; (ii) whether such additional information could be ordered to be 
G 
published ; and (iii) whether the Regional Transport Authority was bound 
to decide the applications on the basis of the qualifications of the ap. 
plicants originally given therein. 
HELD: (i) In deciding the question of power of the Regional Trans-
port Authority to call for further information it has to be borne in mind 
that the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an appllca· 
H 
tion for permit, have regard among other matters to tho interests of the 
public generally, the advantages to the public of the service< to be pro-
vided, the adequacy of other passenger transport services, the operation 
36-1 s.a. India/71 
662 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] SUPP. s.c.1.. 
by the applicant of other transport services including those in respect of 
which applications from him for permits are pending, the benefit to any 
particular locality or location, likely to be afforded· by the service. There· 
fore in considering public interest if the Regional Transport Authority 
would find that the answers furnished by any applicant are not full and 
complete., it will be constricting the exercise of the power of the Regional 
Transport Authority by denying it authority to ask for additional infor· 
mation for full and detailed consideration of the applications in tho 
interest of the public. 
No bard and fast rule can be laid down as to 
how the Regional Transport Authority will act or what the limitations 
of its powers will be. It is a statutory body. It is to exercise its powers 
in the public interest. Such public interest will have to be considered with 
regard to particular matters enumerated in s. 47 of the Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1939 and the particulars of an application are to be judged w11h 
reference to ss. 46 and 47 in particular of the Act. 
Rule 68(6) of the 
Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1

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