Firm Ram Gopal Satya Narayan vs Anant Prasad and others

Jagat Narayan, J.C.

This is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution directed against an appellate order of the V. P. Transport Appellate Tribunal. The application was opposed on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

The applicant was granted a permit for plying a stage carriage between Rewa and Singrauli which was valid upto 11-12-1955. He applied for renewal under S. 58, Indian Motor Vehicles Act to the State Transport Authority. This application for renewal was published in accordance with the procedure prescribed under S. 57.

Respondent 1 filed an application for grant of a permit for the same route which was also published in accordance with the prescribed procedure. He also filed a representation objecting to the renewal of permit of the applicant. His case was not that he was already providing road transport facilities along or near the proposed route. He maintained that he is a new entrant.

As such he was not entitled to make any representation objecting to the renewal of the permit of the applicant under S. 47(1). He, however prayed in his application for grant of permit that it should be considered with the application for renewal filed by the applicant. The two applications were put up for hearing on the same date under the same item of agenda before the State Transport Authority.

A public hearing first took place on 18-11-1955 at which all parties were heard but for some reason which is not apparent from the record, no order was passed and the hearing was adjourned. This adjourned hearing took place on 9-12-1955 when all the parties were present and were heard and the following order was passed:

Present and heard. Renewed for three years.

Sd. J. K. Chowdhary, Chairman, S. T. A., 9-12-1955.

On behalf of the applicant it is contended that by the above order only his application for renewal was granted but the application of respondent 1 for grant of a permit for the same route was not disposed of. The contention of the respondents is that the above order disposed of the application of respondent 1 also which was impliedly rejected.

Sub-section (7) of S. 57 lays down that when a transport authority refuses an application for a permit of any kind it shall give to the applicant in writing its reason for the refusal. No reasons were given by the S. T. A. for refusing to grant a permit to respondent 1 who had applied for it.

It was held by this Court in Messrs. Transport Development Co., Chhatarpur v. Nowgong Bus Association Nowgong'', 1956 Vin Pra 25 (AIR V43) (A) that whenever an application for grant of a permit along any route is received the transport authority is bound to apply its mind once again to matters referred to in S. 47 before disposing of the application. It must consider afresh whether or not it would be in the public interest to grant the permit applied for. If he finds that it would not be opposed to public interest to grant the permit he should grant it even if this involves a revision of any earlier order under S. 48 (a) limiting the number of stage carriages along the route for which a permit has been applied for.

But from the circumstances of the case it is clear that the S. T. A. disposed of the application for grant of a permit filed by respondent 1 by its order dated 9-12-1955 impliedly rejecting it. The S. T. A. should, however, have given reasons for refusing to grant a permit to respondent 1.

Respondent 1 filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the above order treating it as one refusing to grant him a permit. It does not appear to have been contended on behalf of the applicant before the Tribunal that his application had not been disposed of by the order of the S. T. A. dated 9-12-1955.

The objection taken by the applicant before the Tribunal was that no appeal lay against an order renewing a permit. This objection was overruled by the Tribunal. It is contended that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous.

There is undoubtedly a distinction between the grant of a permit and the renewal of one. The applications for the grant of a new permit are made under S. 46 whereas an application for renewal of an existing permit is made under S. 58(2) which runs as follows:

A permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit:

Provided that, other conditions being equal, an application for renewal shall be given preference over new applications for permits

The sub-section merely lays down that the procedure applicable for the renewal of the existing permit shall be the same as that prescribed for granting a fresh permit. The right of filing an appeal is a substantive right. It has to be expressly conferred. A right of appeal cannot therefore be inferred by virtue of the provisions of S. 58(2) against an order renewing a permit on the ground that an appeal lies against an order granting a permit. Section 64 which provides for appeals runs as follows:

Any person - (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the Provincial or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him or (b) aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof, or (c) aggrieved by the refusal to transfer the permit to the person succeeding on the death of the holder of a permit, or (d) aggrieved by the refusal of the Provincial or a Regional Transport Authority to countersign a permit or by any condition attached to such countersignature, or (e) aggrieved by the refusal of renewal of a permit, or (f) being a local authority or police authority or an association which, or a person providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto or (g) being the holder of a licence who is aggrieved by the refusal of a Regional Transport Authority to grant an authorisation to drive a public service vehicle, may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard.

It will be seen that the only persons who can appeal against the grant of a permit are persons who have a right to file a representation under S. 47. That is, persons already providing road transport facilities along or near the proposed route or any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route lies or by any association interested in the provision of road transport facilities.

If any of such persons has objected to the grant of a permit he can file an appeal under S. 64(f). Even such persons cannot file an appeal if they are aggrieved by an order renewing a permit. A person who is aggrieved by the refusal to renew a permit can file an appeal under S. 64(e) and a person aggrieved by the refusal to grant a permit can appeal under S. 64(a). It is quite clear that no one who is not specifically mentioned in S. 64 as being entitled to file an appeal can do so.

The question which arises is as to whether a person falling under sub-cl. (a) or sub-cl. (f) who files an appeal can attack the order renewing a permit and granting a permit respectively at the hearing of the appeal and whether it is open to the appellate tribunal to set aside the order granting a permit or the order renewing a permit in exercise of its appellate powers. When an existing permit is about to expire and an application for renewal is made there are generally other persons who apply for a grant of permit for the same route to themselves and object to the renewal.

Although it is open to the transport authority to renew the existing permit as well as to grant fresh permits for the same route, the number of stage carriages on existing specified routes is generally limited under S. 48(a) in public interest it is generally to the detriment of public interest increase this number. So the question which the transport authority has to decide when an existing permit is about to expire is as to whether it should be renewed or whether a permit should be granted to some one else for the same. route.

If the permit is renewed then it follows that the applications for grant of fresh permits are refused. Such persons can file an appeal under S. 64(a). If however they cannot attack the renewal of the existing permit in the appeal and the appellate authority cannot set aside the order of renewal then the appeal will, for all purposes, be useless. The other class of cases with which the transport authority has to deal with relate to the grant of a fixed number of permits determined under S. 48(a) along a new route.

Supposing two permits are to be granted and 6 persons A, B, C, D, E and P apply for them. Permits are granted to A and B, C, D, E and F to whom permits are refused have a right to file art appeal under & 64(a). If they cannot attack the grant of permits to A and B and the appellate authority cannot set aside the order granting permits to A and B, the appeals filed by C, D, E and F will, for all practical purposes, be useless. That could not have been the intention of the legislature in enacting S. 64.

I accordingly hold that when a person authorised to file an appeal under S. 64 against an order of the S. T. A. does file it, the order of the Transport Authority granting a permit or renewing a permit is set at large and can be attacked and interfered with by the appellate authority in such cases. This view was also taken in ''Gopala Reddi v. R. T. Authority, North Arcot'', 1955 Mad 386 ( (S) AIR V 42) (B) and I respectfully agree with it.

I accordingly find that it was open to the Transport Appellate Tribunal to set aside the order of the S. T. A. renewing the permit of the applicant and to grant a permit instead to respondent 1.

The other grounds taken in the application were not pressed. For reasons given above the application is rejected. I make no order as to costs.