Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Mangrulpir J T. Motor Service (P) Ltd. & Ors [1971] INSC 133
(29 April 1971)
RAY, A.N.
RAY, A.N.
SHELAT, J.M.
CITATION: 1971 AIR 1804 1971 SCR 561
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ss. 46, 47,
57-Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959-Applications for permit-Power of Regional
Transport Authority to call for additional information and to publish it for
objections-Qualifications of applicants to be considered as on date of
application for permit or as on date of consideration of applications.
HEADNOTE:
The respondents were bus operators who
applied for renewal of permits. which were to expire on different dates between
February 28, 1966 and September 30, 1966. The Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (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 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 Regional Transport Authority directed all the applicants to
file additional information relating to matters covered by columns 10 to 16 and
19 of the prescribed form of the application by August 21, 1970 and directed
their publication and invitation of objections thereon. All the applicants
including the respondents tendered additional up to date information about
their operations in terms of the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The
additional information was published 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 respondents meanwhile moved the High
Court for an order on the Regional Transport Authority to forbear from taking
into account up to date information while judging the merits of the contending
operators and to enjoin the said Authority to consider the applications only on
the basis of the information originally filed in the year 1965-66. In appeal by
special leave to this Court the questions for consideration were (i) whether
the Regional Transport Authority had power to call for additional information
as it did; (ii) whether such additional information could be ordered to be
published; and (iii) whether the Regional Transport Authority was bound to
decide the applications on the basis of the qualifications of the applicants
originally given therein.
HELD: (i) In deciding the question of power
of the Regional Transport Authority to call for further information it has to
be borne in mind that the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an
application for permit, have regard among other matters to the interests of the
public generally, the advantages to the public of the services to be provided,
the adequacy of other passenger transport services, the operation 36-1 S.C.
India/71 562 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.
Therefore 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 information for
full and detailed consideration of the applications in the interest of the
public. No hard 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 with reference to ss. 46 and 47 in particular of
the Act. Rule 68(6) of the. Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 also enables the
State or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, to require an applicant
to appear before it and to withhold the consideration of the application for
the permit until the applicant has so appeared in person if so required or by
any recognised agent if so permitted, and until the applicant has furnished
such information as may be required by the Regional Transport Authority in
connection with the application. The words 'in connection with the application'
are important. These words indicate that the Regional Transport Authority will
have power to ask for further information. In the absence of the Regional
Transport Authority acting under corrupt motive or malafide or for any oblique
purpose the discretion which is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority
should not be undermined or restricted.
(ii) Under s. 57 of the Act the application
is to be published in order to enable parties to submit representation in
connection therewith. In the present case in view of the fact that information
was asked for with regard to specific columns of the application it could not
be denied that the information was in connection with the application. It was
therefore within the competence of the Regional Transport Authority under s. 57
of the Act to publish the application or the substance thereof in order to
enable the persons affected thereby to send their representations to the
Regional Transport Authority. It would be in fulfillment of the objects and
purposes of the Act and advancement of public interest to ensure that the
permit is granted to the most meritorious applicant.
Therefore it is all the more necessary to
publish additional information in order to have the fullest materials on record
for proper assessment and evaluation of the merits and demerits.
(iii) The High Court was in error in holding
that the Regional Transport Authority would have to consider the respective
qualifications of the applicants as on the date of their applications and not
as on the date of the actual consideration by the Regional Transport Authority
of the applications for the grant of permit. Normally the Regional Transport
Authority would consider the applications for the grant of permits within a
short time of the submission of the applications. If for any reason a long time
has elapsed as in the present appeal, the Regional Transport Authority will have
to consider the various matters enumerated in cls.
(a) to (f) of s. 46 of the Act at the time of
the consideration of the applications. The death or insolvency of an applicant
since the filing of the application cannot be ignored. The public interest stands
in the forefront.
563 Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation v. Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service, & Ors., [1970] 2
S.C.R. 319, Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari & Ors., [1969] 2 S.C.& 507 and A.
S. Jalaluddin v. Balasubramaniar Bits Service (P) Ltd. C.A. No. 161/65 Dt.
31-10-1967, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 117 of 1971.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated November 20, 1970 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special
Civil Application No. 939 of 1970.
M. C. Chagla, Santosh Chatterjee and G. S.
Chatterjee, for the appellant.
B. R. L. Iyengar, M. N. Phadke, Naunit Lal,
and Swaranjit Sondhi, for respondents nos. 1 to 6.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 20 November,
1970 of the Bombay High Court directing the Regional Transport Authority to
dispose of the applications for stage carriage permits pending before it
without any further delay and without any further adjournment at the instance
of any party whatsoever.
The principal questions for consideration in
this appeal are; first, whether the Regional Transport Authority has power to
call for further or additional information from the applicants for the grant of
permit at the time of consideration of the applications for the grant of
permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act
and secondly whether the Regional Transport Authority will consider the
qualifications of the applicants as on the date of the consideration of the
applications for grant of permits.
The respondents are private operators. They
held substantive permits on various routes. They applied for renewal of permits
which were to expire on different dates between 28th February, 1966 and 30th
September, 1966. The appellant applied for grant of substantive permits in lieu
of the renewal applications made by the respondents.
While those applications were pending before
the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, some private operators on different
routes made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging
the validity of the direction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to the
Regional Transport Authority to allow ;the State Transport Corporation an
applicant for the grant of 564 permit to furnish complete information in
respect of columns 10, 14 and 15 on the prescribed form of their application
for grant of permit. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by judgment and
order dated 5 October, 1967 quashed the order of the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal by holding that the application filed by the State Transport
Corporation in that case was defective and the Appellate Committee had no
jurisdiction to give the State Transport Corporation a fresh opportunity to
furnish additional particulars. An appeal was preferred from the judgment of
the High Court to this Court being Civil Appeal No. 1297 of 1968 : Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service &
Ors. This Court on 10 September, 1969 held that the Regional Transport
Authority would be acting within its jurisdiction in calling upon an applicant
to give more complete details and to give an opportunity to the other parties
to state their objections.
During the pendency of appeal in the case of
Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service, the respondents except respondent No.
4 moved the High Court by Writ Petitions in
the year 1969 for hearing of their applications for grant of permit.
Those Writ Petitions were disposed of by the
High Court by consent order dated 20 March, 1969 by which it was agreed that
till the decision of this Court in Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service, the
renewal applications of the respondents and the applications of the appellant
in lieu of renewal would be postponed for consideration.
After the decision of this Court in Babu
Goverdhan Regular Motor Service the Regional Transport Authority held a meeting
on 28 October, 1969 to consider the applications.
The appellant at that meeting sought
permission to Me additional information in the light of the above decision of
this Court. The Regional Transport Authority adjourned the proceeding till 27
November, 1969. At the meeting held on 27 November, 1969 respondent No. 6
contended that the Regional Transport Authority must, before proceeding to
consider that application, fix the limit of the number of permits under section
47(3) of the Act. This step was to be taken before consideration of the
applications for the grant of permit. The Regional Transport Authority
postponed the consideration of the applications and fixed the next meeting on
12 December, 1969, so that it would comply with the provisions of section 47(3)
of the Act. No meeting could however be held for want of quorum and the next
meeting was fixed for 8 January, '1970.
(1) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 319.
565 The appellant meanwhile by a letter dated
29 December, 1969 addressed to the Regional Transport Authority gave additional
information in respect of columns 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the prescribed form
and called upon the Regional Transport Authority to publish the said
information to enable the contending or competing operators to file objections.
The appellant gave up to date information in order to enable the Regional
Transport Authority to judge the respective merits of the applicants which,
according to the appellant, could not be done on the basis of information
furnished in the application filed in the year 1966. The appellant simultaneously
furnished copies of the additional information to the respondents who were the
private operators.
At the meeting of the Regional Transport
Authority on 21 March, 1970 the appellant requested the Regional Transport
Authority for publication of the additional information.
The Regional Transport Authority acceded to
the request and directed the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to
publish additional information. Some of the respondents who had initially
objected to the receipt and publication of additional information ultimately
withdrew the objections.
At about the time of the application of the
information one of the respondents applied to the High Court for an order that
the Regional Transport Authority was unduly delaying consideration of the
applications on merits. The High Court by an order dated 30 April, 1970
directed the Regional Transport Authority to commence consideration of the
applications as expeditiously as possible and within two months from the date
of the order. The High Court further observed that the applications for the
grant of permits were ripe for hearing and it was not the stage at all for
publishing any information which the appellant might have lodged with the
Regional Transport Authority. The High Court took the view that the Regional
Transport Authority might call for additional information but it was not the
case there because the appellant of its own sent additional information and it
amounted to an amendment of their application which was not permissible under
the Act and also in view of the decision of. this Court in Babu Goverdhan
Regular Motor Service case(1).
The Regional Transport Authority held the
meeting on 29 July, 1970 and all the applications were placed for consideration
on merit. At that meeting a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the
appellant on the basis of an application filed on 23 July, 1970 with the
Regional Transport Authority. to the effect that in view of the unusually long
time which had elapsed since the making of the applications in the year 1965-66
for the grant of permits it had become necessary to call for and consider up to
(1) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 319.
566 date information about all the
applicants. The Regional Transport Authority directed all the applicants to
file additional information relating to matters covered by columns 10 to 16 and
19 of the prescribed form of the application by 21 August, 1970 and directed
their publication and invitation of objections thereon.
All the applicants including the respondents
tendered additional up to date information about their operations in terms of
the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
Additional information was published.
Objections thereto were received. The Regional Transport Authority posted all
the applications for consideration on merit at a meeting due to be held on 26
November, 1970.
The respondents meanwhile moved the High
Court for an order on the Regional Transport Authority to forbear from taking
into account up to date information while judging the merits of the contending
operators and to enjoin the Regional Transport Authority to consider the
applications only on the basis of the information originally filed in the year
196566, and not on the basis of any up to date information. The High Court by
judgment and order dated 20 November, 1970 directed the Regional Transport
Authority to dispose of all the applications at the meeting on 26 November,
1970 and not to postpone consideration and disposal of the applications on any
ground whatsoever. This is the judgment out of which the present appeal arises.
The High Court held that applications filed
under section
46. of the Act could not be permitted to be
amended and calling for additional information by the Regional Transport
Authority would have the effect of granting amendment of applications.
Secondly, the High Court held that the order of the Regional Transport
Authority dated 29 July, 1970 virtually permitted amendment of the applications
by the private operators as well as by the appellant and this course was contrary
to law and was opposed to the previous directions given by the High Court on 30
April, 1970 to the Regional Transport Authority, to dispose of the applications
within two months. Thirdly, the High Court held that the Regional Transport
Authority had to consider the respective qualifications of the applicants as on
the date of their applications and not as on the date of the actual
consideration by the Regional Transport Authority.
Fourthly, the High Court held that while
considering the applications the Regional Transport Authority under section 47
of the Act could call for such specific information as it needed from a
particular applicant, but in the present case full information from all the
applicants had already been called for and was now on the record of the
Regional Transport Authority and therefore the Regional Transport Authority
should dispose of the applications pending before it for five years without
further delay.
567 The first question which falls for
consideration is whether the Regional Transport Authority can call for further
or additional information from the applicants. The applications for stage
carriage permit are to contain particulars mentioned in section 46 of the Act
and in clauses (a) to (f) thereof which are as follows "Application for
stage carriage permit.-An application for a permit in respect of a service of
stage carriages or to use a particular motor vehicle as a stage carriage (in
this Chapter referred to as a stage carriage permit) shall, as far as may be,
contain the following particulars namely:
(a) the route or routes or the area or areas
to which the application relates;
(b) the number of vehicles it is proposed to
operate in relation to each route or area and the type and seating capacity of
each such vehicle;
(c) the minimum and maximum number of daily
trips proposed to be provided in relation to each route or area and the time
table of the normal trips;
(d) the number of vehicles intended to be
kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for special occasion;
(e) the arrangements intended to be made for
the housing and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and convenience of
passengers and for the storage and safe custody of luggage;
(f) such other matters as may be
prescribed." An application for stage carriage permit is under the Bombay
Motor Vehicles Rules 1959 to be made in the form prescribed by rule 80 and
described as form P. St. S. A. The prescribed form of the application contains
22 columns.
In the present appeal, the columns which are
relevant for consideration are columns 10 to 16 and 19. These columns are as
follows:
"10. Number of vehicles kept in reserve
to maintain the service regularly and to provide for special occasion
11. Arrangements made for housing and repair
of vehicles (to be given in detail)
12. Arrangements made for convenience and
comfort of passengers 568
13. Arrangements made for storage and safe
custody of luggage
14. Particulars of any stage or contract
carriage permit valid in the State, held by the applicant
15. Particulars of any permit held by the
applicant in respect of the use of any transport vehicle in any other State
16. Whether any of the permits stated above
has been subject of an order of suspension or cancellation in last four years.
If so, give details
19. I am at present in possession of vehicles
available for use under the permit applied for." Section 47 (1) of the Act
which deals with the power of the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits
is as follows "Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering
application for stage carriage permit: (1) A Regional Transport Authority
shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard
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 any 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 service (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;
and shall also take into consideration any
representations made by persons already providing passenger transport
facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area, or by any
association representing persons interested in the provision. of road transport
facilities recognised in this behalf by the State Government, 569 or by any
local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the
proposed route or area lies Provided that other conditions being equal an
application for a stage carriage permit from a cooperative society registered
or deemed to have been registered under any enactment in force for the time
being shall, as far as may be, be given preference over applications from
individual owners." The other section relevant for purposes of grant of
permits is section 57 of the Act which deals with the procedure of the Regional
Transport Authority in considering applications for stage carriage permit.
There are 10 sub-sections of section 57. The two important sub-sections for the
purposes of the present appeal are section (2) and (3). Sub-section (2) deals
with the time for making applications for grant of permits. No dispute arises
on that subsection in the present appeal. Sub-s. (3) provides that on receipt
of an application for stage carriage permit the Regional Transport Authority
shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the
Authority and shall publish the applications or the substance thereof in the
prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which
representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date, not
being less than thirty days from such publication on which, and the time and
place at which, the application and any representations received win be
considered. The only question which arises on sub-section (3) of section 57 of
the Act in the present appeal is whether further or additional information as
may be called for by the Regional Transport Authority will also have to be
published.
In the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor
Service(1) this Court held that the form prescribed by the Rules requiring the
furnishing of information on the various particulars and matters referred to
therein was valid and section 46 of the Act, Rule 80 of the Bombay Motor
Vehicles Rules and the prescribed form would all have to be read together in
order to find out the scheme of the Act on the question of power of the
Regional Transport Authority to ask for full and complete information.
Section 46 of the Act which deals with
applications for stage carriage permit enumerates the particulars to be given
in the applications. The prescribed form is with reference to these
particulars. In the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service(1) the State
Transport Corporation in filling up columns 14 and 15 with regard to
particulars of stage or contract carriage permits held by the applicant in the
State and in any other State did not give full particulars of permits and ended
by using the word "et cetera". The (1) [1970] 2 S.C.R.319.
570 High Court in the case of Babu Goverdhan
Regular Motor Service held that the application of the appellant in that case
was invalid' because the application did not give full and complete details in
respect of columns 14 and 15. This Court held that the applicant in that case
should have given an exhaustive list of the other permits held by it in the
State or in any other State and therefore the State authorities could call upon
a party to give complete details. The High Court in the present case expressed
the view that giving of details would amount to an amendment of the application
and that this Court in the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service(1) held
that there could be no amendment of an application. The decision of this Court
is not to that effect. If particulars will be furnished these particulars will
become part of the application. The application is to that extent amended.
In deciding the question of power of the
Regional Transport Authority to call for further information it has to be borne
in mind that the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an
application for permit, have regard among other matters to the interests of the
public generally, the advantages to the public of the services to be provided,
the adequacy of other passenger transport services, the operation 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 localities likely to be afforded by the service.
Therefore 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
power of the Regional Transport Authority by denying it authority to ask for
additional information for full and detailed consideration of the applications
in the interest of the public. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how
the Regional Transport Authority will act or what the limitations of their
powers will be. It is a statutory body. It is to exercise statutory powers in
the public interest. Such public interest would have to be considered with
regard to particular matters enumerated in section 47 of the Act and the
particulars of an application are to be judged with reference to sections 46
and 47 in particular of the Act.
Reference may also be made to rule 68(6) of
the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules which enables the State or the Regional
Transport Authority, as the case may be, to require an applicant to appear
before it and to withhold the consideration of the application for the permit
until the applicant has so appeared in person if so required or by any
recognised agent if so permitted, and until the applicant has furnished such
information as may be required by the Transport Authority in connection with
the application. The words "in connection with the application" are
important.
These words indicate that the Regional, (1)
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 319.
571 Transport Authority will have power to
ask for further information.
In the present case, on 29 July, 1970 the
Regional Transport Authority found that the applications which had been
submitted in the year 1965-66 would hardly represent the real merits of the
operators in the year 1970. The Regional Transport Authority therefore directed
the applicants to file additional information relating to matters covered by
columns 10 to 16 and 19 of the prescribed form. The further direction was that
the information would be filed before 21 August, 1970, and would be published
and objections would be called for within 15 days from the date of publication.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that
the information supplied by the applicants pursuant to the direction of the
Regional Transport Authority would be voluminous and the publication would take
a long time. Under section 57 of the Act the application is to be published in
order to enable parties to submit representation in connection therewith.
Publication therefore is a statutory
obligation. In view of the fact that information was asked for with regard to
specific columns of the application it cannot be denied that the information
was in connection with the application. It will therefore be within the
competence of the Regional Transport Authority under section 57 of the Act to
publish the application or the substance thereof in order to enable the persons
affected thereby to send their representations to the Regional Transport
Authority.
The Regional Transport Authority is entrusted
by the statute to consider the applications for the grant of permit.
Application are on a printed form. It will
be, in the interest of the applicants to furnish all information. If however
for any reason, the Regional Transport Authority will require further
information, it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to
whether the power is exercised bona fide, and whether the discretion that is
conferred on the Regional Transport Authority is exercised properly and
judiciously. In the absence of the Regional Transport Authority acting under
any corrupt motive or mala fide or for a oblique purpose the discretion which is
conferred on the Regional Transport Authority should not be undermined and
restricted.
The High Court was in error on the second
question in holding that the Regional Transport Authority would have to
consider the respective qualifications of the applicants as on the date of
their applications and not as on the date of the actual consideration by the
Regional Transport Authority of the applications for the grant of permit.
Normally, the Regional Transport Authority would consider the applications for
the grant of permits within a short time of the submission of the applications.
If for any reason 572 a long time elapses as in the present appeal, the
Regional Transport Authority will have to consider the various matters
enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of section 46 of the Act at the time of
consideration of the applications for the grant of permits. The public interest
stands in the forefront. If the Regional Transport Authority will find that the
applicant has become insolvent subsequent to the submission of the application
it cannot be expected that the Regional Transport Authority will yet have to
grant a permit to the insolvent applicant. In refusing the grant of permit the
solvency of the applicant will enter the area of appreciation and assessment of
the merits and demerits of the applicant. Again, if an applicant died
subsequent to the submission of the application the Regional Transport
Authority will have to consider at the time of the grant of permit whether it
will allow the heirs. or legal representatives to stand in the shoes of the
deceased applicant. This question arose before this Court in Dhani Devi v. Sant
Bihari & Ors. (1). This Court held that the Regional Transport Authority
would have power to substitute the heirs/successors in place of the deceased
applicant in the records of the proceedings and allow the successors to
prosecute the application.
In the unreported decision of this Court in
A. S. Jalaluddin v. Balasubramaniar Bus Service (P) Ltd. and Anr.(2) the
Regional Transport Authority refused to grant permit to an applicant on the
ground that he did not have either main office or branch office or residence on
the route applied for. The applicant preferred an appeal to the State Appellate
Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order and granted the permit to the
appellant. Before the Tribunal the appellant's counsel in that case stated that
the applicant had sent to the Regional Transport Authority in advance of the
date fixed for consideration of the application for the grant of permit a
letter stating that the appellant had secured a branch office on the route in
question. The finding of the Tribunal was challenged by writ petitions in the
High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the finding of
the Tribunal could not be challenged but the Division Bench held that the
finding of the Tribunal as to possession of branch office and residence on the
route by the appellant was without evidence. This Court set aside the Bench
decision of the High Court and restored the judgment of the learned Single
Judge by holding that there was material before the Tribunal that the appellant
had secured a branch office. This decision establishes two propositions: First,
that an applicant can furnish additional or further information in connection
with the application before the Regional Transport Authority and, secondly that
the Regional Transport Authority is competent to (1) [1969] 2 S.C.R.507.
(2)C.A.No.161 of 1965 decided on 31-10-1967.
573 act on such information at the time of consideration
of the applications for the grant of permits. It will always have to be found
out in the facts and circumstances of each case as to the nature of
information, the manner of furnishing it in order to decide whether the
Regional Transport Authority was entitled to ask for such information and the
applicant was entitled to furnish it.
If the Regional Transport Authority will have
at the date of the consideration of the grant of permit information which may
disentitle the applicant by reason of conviction, insolvency, loss of fleet,
lack of facilities, or any subsequent event of importance as would affect the
grant of permit to an applicant, it would be in fulfillment of the objects and
purposes of the Act and advancement of public interest to ensure that the
permit is granted to the most meritorious applicant. Therefore it is all the
more necessary to', publish additional information in order to have the fullest
materials on record for proper assessment and evaluation of the merits and
demerits.
The High Court was wrong in directing the
Regional Transport Authority to proceed on the basis of applications submitted
in the year 1965-66. The Regional Transport Authority will dispose of the
applications on the basis of further information forwarded by the applicants
and published by the Regional Transport Authority and representations by
parties in connection therewith as expeditiously as possible. The obvious need
not be stressed that long time has elapsed and the Regional Transport Authority
should proceed in accordance with law without further delay. The appeal is
accepted. The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
Each party will pay and bear their own costs.
Back
