R. OBLISWAMI NAIDU versus ADDL. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 730 · Decided: 17-02-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

730 
R. OBLISWAMI NAIDU 
V, 
ADDL. STATE TRANSPORT 
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 
MADRAS & ORS. 
February 17, 1969 
[S. M. SJKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), ss. 41 and 57-App/ication for staRe 
carriage pern1it ·an new route-Procedure to be followed. 
The appellant applied to the R.T.A. for a permit to ply a stage car-
riage on a new route on which no stage carriage was plying before. The 
R.T.A. published the application under s. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1939. 
Some representations against the grant of the permit on the 
ground that there was no need we're received. 
The R. T.A., after over~ 
ruling the objections granted the permit to the appellant. The appeal by. 
some of the objectors was allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tri-
bunal on the ground that the procedure adopted by the R.T.A. was not 
in accordance with law inasmuch as it failed to determine the question 
of the need for a service in that 'route before entertaining the application. 
The appellate order was confirmed by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (Dismissing the appeal) Having regard to the purpose be-
hind ss. 47 and 57, that only public interest should be considered and any 
manipulation in favoUr of a particular ·applicant shou1d be eliminated. 
there should be two independent steps before granting a stage carriage 
permit : (a) there should be a determination by the R.T.A., under s. 
4 7 (3), of the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted 
-00 that r<>ute, and (b) applications for permits for such number of stage 
carriages should be entertained thereafter. 
Otherwise, theo R.T.A. will 
have no oppcrtunity to choose between competing 
operators. 
The 're~ 
presentations' made under s. 57(3) cannot be considered as competing 
applications. Further, if 'representations' should be interpreted to include 
'applications', then •· 57(3) becomes unworkable as there will be unend-
ing applications and publications. [733 B-C, F. H] 
lcrya Ram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam, C.A. No. 95165 datcJ 
27-10-1967, fOll\)Wed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1426 of 
1968. 
Appeal from the .iudgment and order dated April 16, 1968 of 
the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 908 of 1968. 
D. Narsaraju Subramaniam, Vineet Kumar, J. Ramamurthy, 
P. S. Khera and Shyamala Pappu, for the appellant. 
S. T. Desai, A. R. Ramanathan and R. Gopalakris/man, 
for 
respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. 1:he scope of s. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1939 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) comes up for consi-
deration in this appeal by certificate. 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
A 
B 
c 
D 
B 
., 
R. o. NAIDU v. S.T.A.T. (Hegde, J.) 
731 
The facts of the case necessary for the purpose of deciding the 
point in issue are few, and they are.as follows:-
On August 8, 1966, the·appellant applied to the R:T.A. Coim-
batore for a permit to ply a stage carriage on the route Bhavani to 
Vellithiruppur. That was Mtirely a new route. No stage carriage 
was plying on that route at that time. The R. T.A. published that 
application under s. 57 (3) of the Act. Respondents Nos. 2-3 and 
others made representations against that application contending 
that there was no need to grant a stage carriage permit for that 
route. The R. T .A. overruled their objection and granted the per-
mit asked for on October 9, 1967. 
As against the order of the 
R. T.A. some of the objectors went up in appeal to the State Trans-
port Appellate Tribunal, Madras. The Additional State Transport 
Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by its order of February 22, 
1968 holding that the procedure adopted by the R. T.A. was not in 
accordance with law inasmuch as it had failed to determine the 
question of the need for a service in that !}JUie before entertaining 
the application for a stage carriage permit. The Tribunal held that 
the procedure adopted by the RT.A. contravened s. 47(3) of the 
Act. The appellant challenged that order before the High Court 
of Madras in Writ Petition No. 908 of 1968. The High Court 
dismissed that application. Hence this appeal. 
Section 47 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be adopted 
by the R.T.A. in considering applications for stage carriage permit. 
That section reads : 
"A Regional Transport Authority shall, in consider-
ing an application for a stage carriage pennit, have regard 
to the following matters namely : 
(a) the

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