S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.
(1) The Petitioner before us was granted a permit by the Regional Transport Authority for the route between Kampli and Bellary. Against the said grant the matter was taken in appeal to the State Transport Authority. The State Transport authority cancelled the permit on the ground that the Regional Transport authority violated the provisions of Section 57(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Transport Authority thereupon sent the matter back tot the Regional Transport Authority with a direction to renotify all applications which were before it for the permit. Pending decision of this matter the State Transport authority granted a temporary permit to the Petitioner to ply his bus in the said route. The matter was thereupon taken on appeal to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal both against the substantive order passed by the State Transport Authority and the interlocutory order passed by it permitting the Petitioner to ply his bus temporarily between Kampli and Bellary.
The Revenue Appellate Tribunal dismissed both the appeals. Against the decision of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal in so far as it related to the interlocutory order, a writ petition was filed before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal against the substantive order of the State Transport Authority sent the matter back to the Regional Transport Authority with a direction to renotify all the applications which were before it for the grant of permit.
(2) The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner urged two grounds before us. In the first place, he contended that the view taken by the State transport Authority and which view was confirmed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, viz. that the advertisement was defective inasmuch as it did not mention the date and time of hearing of the applications for permit, was not correct. The learned Advocate relied on a decision of this Court wherein it has been held that it is not mandatory upon the Regional Transport Authority to mention in the same notification the date and the time of the hearing of the applications.
In the second place, the learned Advocate contended before us that the Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the State Transport Authority have taken the view that the Regional Transport Authority has given no reasons for its decision and the said view was erroneous. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner contended before us that from the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority it would appear that the said authority has given reasons for its decision to grant the permit to the petitioner.
(3) In my opinion, it is not necessary to go into the first contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, inasmuch as the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal as also of the State Transport Authority can be justified on the other ground, viz. that the order of the Regional Transport Authority violated the provisions of Section 57(7) of the Vehicles Act. Section 57(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that when a Regional Transport Authority refuses an application for a permit of any kind, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal. Both the Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the State Transport Authority has given no reason for refusing the applications of the other claimants for the permit.
Although it would not be strictly correct to say that the Regional Transport Authority has given no reason for refusing the applications of the other claimants for the permit in question, the reasons given by the said authority are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In a recent decision of this Court, (Hanuman Transport v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 Mys 72), this Court held, agreeing with the view which was taken by Mr. Justice Sinha of the Calcutta High Court, that the Regional Transport Authority cannot take into account, in determining whether or not a permit should be granted, matters utterly irrelevant and beyond the scope of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
On the facts of that case, however, it was held that the consideration in question was not irrelevant or beyond the scope of Section 47. In the present case, I am of the opinion, the considerations which guided the Regional Transport Authority in granting the permit to the petitioner were utterly irrelevant and beyond the scope of section 47. At this stage I should refer to the provisions of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It provides that the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regarded to the following matters, namely :
(a) the interests of the public generally;
(b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and the convenience arising from journeys not being broken;
(c) The adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be served;
(d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the services;
(e) the operation by the applicant of other transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending;
(f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area.
The considerations which moved the Regional Transport Authority in making the grant in favour of the petitioner in the present case do not come within any one of the matters mentioned in S. 47 and were utterly irrelevant and beyond the scope of the said section. The Regional Transport Authority, in granting the permit in favour of the petitioner, was actuated solely by the consideration that the petitioner has suffered on account of nationalization of the Bangalore-Bellary route and as he is a suffer the present permit should be granted to him.
In stating the case of the petitioner the Regional Transport Authority mentioned that the claim of this applicant is that by the nationalization of Bangalore-Bellary route he suffered considerably and he had, therefore, applied for a temporary permit of this route which was once granted; but an extension thereof was refused as there was an application for pucca permit. This is the sole consideration on which the Regional Transport Authority has granted the permit in favour of the petitioner and has rejected the applications of the respondents. I am clearly of the opinion that this consideration does not come within the four corners of Section 47 of the Motor vehicles Act and is not even alied to the matters mentioned in the said section.
(4) The learned Advocate for the petitioner, however, tried to contend before us that the matters mentioned in Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act are not the only matters which should be taken into consideration in determining whether or not a grant should be made to any particular applicant. In support of that proposition, he relied on the decisions reported in Ramayya v. State of Madras, : AIR1952Mad300 , Dholpur Co-operative Transport and Multipurpose Union Ltd. V. Appellate Authority, Rajasthan, AIR 1955 Raj 19, Shah Transport Co., Chhindwara v. State of M. P., AIR 1952 Nag 353 and Ramayya v. State of Andhra, AIR 1956 Andhra 217. He contended on the authority of these decisions that the Regional Transport Authority was fully justified in granting the permit to his client on the ground that he has suffered at a result of the nationalization of the Bangalore Bellary route.
(5) In my opinion, none of these decisions support the point of view of the petitioner. In the case of : AIR1952Mad300 , all that was said was that the considerations mentioned in S. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be in addition to the objections raised under sub-s. (3) of S. 57 of the Act. Their Lordships have quoted with approval a passage from the judgment of Mr. Justice Subba Rao (as he then was) in W. P. No. 176 of 1951(Mad). The passage quoted by their Lordship was to this effect :
'One of the principles is that under Section 47 of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority, in issuing or refusing to permit shall have regard to all matters mentioned in the section. The section is not exhaustive. Though the authority has no jurisdiction to issue or refuse a permit without taking the matters mentioned therein (into consideration), the section does not in terms exclude from the consideration of other matters germane to the question to be decided.'
At the very outset it should be noticed that the other matters, which according to his Lordship may be taken into consideration, are matters which are germane to the question to be decided. Mr. Justice Subba Rao in a subsequent decision of the Andhra High Court has made the position clear. In the case reported in AIR 1956 Andhra 217, their Lordships, including Chief Justice Subba Rao (as he then was), made it quite clear that the considerations which should weigh with transport authorities in the grant or refusal of a stage carriage permit must be germane to the matters mentioned in Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
This view fully accords with the view which was taken by this Court in the case reported in AIR 1959 Mys 72. It will, therefore, be seen that the view expressed in the case reported in : AIR1952Mad300 , is in no way in conflict with the view which this Court has taken in the said case. The Andhra decision on which the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied (AIR 1956 Andhara 217), far from supporting his contention on this point is to my mind, against it.
(6) As for the Rajasthan decision on which the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied (AIR 1955 Raj 19), it seems to me that the same principle which was laid down in the Andhra case, just now referred to and accepted by this Court in the ease reported in AIR 1959 Mys 72, was also adopted by Their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court. Their Lordships observed as follows :
'Section 47 lays down the general conditions regard will be paid to which in granting or refusing a stage carriage permit. These conditions are not necessarily exhaustive in details and in deciding between one applicant and another, the Regional Transport Authority or the Appellant Authority may well consider other allied matters. For example it there are two applicants and only one permit is to be granted, and one of the applicant is a new operator, the Transport Authority may well take into account the fact that one of the applicants is an old experienced operator and as such better entitled to the permit. Or, there are two persons applying for a permit, and one of them has better buses than the other, the Transport Authority may well take into consideration also in granting the permit.'
(7) It would appear from the above observations that the matters which the Regional Transport Authority can take into consideration are the matters mentioned in Section 47 and other allied matters. This view, in my opinion, fully accords with the view taken by their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case just now referred to. It in no way supports the view that the Regional Transport Authority was free to take into consideration matters which were utterly irrelevant and beyond the scope of Section 47.
(8) The only other case which remains to be considered is the one reported in AIR 1952 Nag 353. The present question did not come up for their Lordships' consideration in the said case. The question which their Lordships had to consider was whether or not the policy of making provisions for dislodged operators on the routes held by new operators is in contravention of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Their Lordships took the view that the classification made by the State Transport Authority on the basis that the operators in question are dislodged operators was perfectly reasonable and the policy of the State Transport Authority on the basis that the operators in question are dislodged operators was perfectly reasonable and the policy of the State Transport Authority providing for dislodged operators on the routes held by the new operators is not discriminatory.
Their Lordships did not consider the question which is now raised before us as to whether or not in giving the permit to a particular person the Regional Transport Authority can take into consideration matters which are utterly irrelevant and beyond the scope of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Lordships' consideration.
(9) In the result the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal and by the State Transport Authority have to be upheld on the ground mentioned in this judgment. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.
Hombe Gowda, J.
(10) I agree
(11) Petition dismissed.