MOHD. IBRAHIM ETC. versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS ETC.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 474 · Decided: 30-04-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

474 
MOHD. IBRAHIM ETC. 
v. 
STATE 
T~ANSPORT APPELi.ATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS 
ETC. 
April 30, 1970 
(M. ffIDAYAHCLLAH, C.J .. A. N. RAY AND I. D. DuA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), ss. 47, 57 and 63-Scope of i11 re/a. 
tioa to per1nits h'ithin. a region. 
inter-regional permits and inter-State 
pcnnits. 
( n A Regional Transport Authority is not required under s. 47(3) of 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to take into consideration any representa-
ti9ns of the nature mentioned ins. 47(1) of the Act because there is first 
total absence ins. 47(3) of any reference to representations mentioned in 
s. 4 7 (1) and secondly the Regional Transport Authority 
while 
acting 
under s. 47(3) docs not deal with any dispute between operators and is 
confined to its own administrative policy. [480 A. D-F] 
Neither the 
provision of a right of appeal 
under s, 64 rend with 
'" 147(2) to a 'person aggrieved' by an order under s. 47(3) nor the right 
to apply for a revision under s. 64A. is itself decisive of the true function 
<'f the Regional Trnnsport Authority under s. 47(3), and as to whether 
the said authority has to grant hearing to persons at the time of fixing the 
number o'f permits. 
While acting under s. 47(3) the Regional Transport 
Authority is the master of its own procedure, 
because it does not de<il 
with individual or competing rights of operators, but is required to arrive 
objectively at its own conclusion independent of any application or re-
presentation hy operators. [48 l B-EI 
Therefore. the Regional Trnnsport Authority is not obliged to hear 
operators while exercising jurisdiction undct s. 47(3) in fixing the limit of 
number of permits. \481 El 
(2) When the Regional Transport Authority approves a proposal of 
the Secretary of the Authority to open a new route or to have an addi-
tional permit on an existing route 
and therefore 
notifications under 
s. 57(2) are made in respect of grunt of permit on a new route or an 
additional pern1it on nn existing route. it cun reasonably be _held that there 
has been a valid order under s. 47(3 J, because, it is not the form hut the 
suhstanr.e of the order that has to he considered. i487 D-r::; 1•. Cl 
( 3) The limit of number of permits fixed by the Regional Transport 
Authority undct• s. 4713) cannot be modified by the Regional Transport 
Authority when exercising the separate power of granting permits under 
s. 48, or even by the State Appellate Transport Authority dealing with 
appeals against the grant of permits. 
Section 48 begins with the words 
'subject to the provisions of s. 47' meaning thereby that the jurisdiction 
to grant permits is subject to the determination o'f the limit of numb~r of 
permits, It is in the scheme of the Act that limit should be fixed before 
the grant of permits and proper effect can be given to these provisions by 
deciding upon the limit of number of permits before application for grant 
A 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
./ 
IBRAHIM V. S.T.A. TRIBUNAL 
475 
A 
of permits are invited un<ler s. 57(2) of the Act an<l in other cases before 
application for grant of permits are published under s. 57(3) of the Act 
to enable persons to make representations. 
The central idea is that appli-
cants and those who make representations should all know the limit of 
number of perni.its to he granted in ordet to ensure free ;;in<l fair competi-
tion [485 A-G. D; 501 A-Cl 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
( 4) Though the scheme o'f the statute has not been fOllowed in all the 
appeals in the present case, the Regional Transport Authority fixed the 
:;ii1it of number of pcrmitc;; before it actually considered the applications 
for grant of permit and all parties competed for the grant on that basis 
and no one expressed any grievance at the time. 
In the facts and circuttts-
tanc1.."S of the present appeals it \VaS found that there was a valid order 
under s. 4 7 ( 3) of the Act and further there was a notification under 
s. 57(21 of the Act. [502 B-El 
Abdul Matec•11 '" Ram Kai/tL1·/1 Pandey, 
[1963] 
3 S.C.R. 523, Mis. 
!a)'ll Ram Motur Sarice '" S. Rajaratliinan, C.A. No. 95165 dt. 27-10-67. 
Ba/111rnn v. Swte Transport. Appdlal'e A11tl1ority, M.P .. C.A. No. 727/65 
I.It. 22-3-68 and R. Ohi/aswami Naidu v. Addi. Swte Tran.l'port Appellate 
Trib11nal, Mcu/ra.I', [1969.\ 1 S.C.R. 730, followed. 
(5) Section 4713) will not apply to inter-State permits, because, the 
provision relates to n Regional Transport Auth,ority limiting the number 
of permits in the reRion <Jr

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