M. Duraiswamy Vs. Murugan Bus Service
& Ors [1986] INSC 57 (2 April 1986)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S.
(J) THAKKAR, M.P. (J)
CITATION: 1986 AIR 1980 1986 SCR (2) 68 1986
SCC Supl. 1 JT 1986 518 1986 SCALE (1)515
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ss. 45, 57 and 63
read with Rules 163-A, 163-B and 208 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1940 -
Inter-regional permit - Application for variation of existing permit involving
extension of route/area lying in the jurisdiction of another RTA - Whether to
be made to RTA which granted permit or to RTA which has jurisdiction over area
in respect of which extension is sought.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was the holder of an
inter-regional permit in respect of a motor vehicle plying on the town service
route No.1A from Erode Railway Station to Tiruchengode. The major portion of
the route mentioned in the permit of the appellant was lying within the
jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority of Periyar and the smaller
portion lay within the District of Salem.
The appellant applied to the Regional
Transport Authority of the District of Periyar which had issued the aforesaid
permit for its variation involving, inter alia, conversion of the town service
into a mofussil service and extension of route from Tiruchengode to Salem. If
the route in respect of which extension is sought is added then the major
portion of the total route would be within the District of Salem. The Regional
Transport Authority after notifying the application for variation under section
57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and considering the
representations/objections thereto, rejected the application on the ground that
it was not proper for it to grant the extension since the entire sector in
respect of which the extension was sought lay within Salem District and that
the said sector was well-served by stage carriage services.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional
Transport Authority at Periyar, the appellant preferred an appeal before the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted
the variation (including the extension) 69 applied for with slight
modification. Thereupon, some of the objectors to the original application for
variation filed before the High Court civil revision petitions and writ
petition against the order of the Tribunal. The High Court allowed the
petitions holding that the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar had no
jurisdiction to entertain the application for variation since the entire route
in respect of which extension was sought lay within the jurisdiction of the Salem
Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, the proceedings commenced with the
said application were liable to be quashed. Hence this appeal by special leave.
Allowing the appeal on the question whether
an application for the variation of an existing permit involving the extension
of the route or the area specified in the permit, where the portion of the
route or area in respect of which extension is sought lies entirely within the
jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority which had not granted the permit,
should be made to the Regional Transport Authority which had granted the permit
or to the Regional Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the route or
area in respect of which extension is sought lies, ^
HELD: 1. Section 45 of the Act does not apply
to the case of a variation of permit and that when a variation of a permit is
sought the application for the grant of such variation should be made to the
Regional Transport Authority which has granted the permit even though the
entire route or area in respect of which extension is sought lies in another
region or a major portion of the entire route (including the new route or area)
lies within another region. On such application being made it is the duty of
the Regional Transport Authority which has granted the permit to consider
whether the variation sought should be sanctioned in the public interest or
not. If that Regional Transport Authority grants variation prayed for, then the
concurrence of the other Regional Transport Authority would have to be sought
in accordance with either section 63(1) of the Act or where there are rules
made corresponding to rules 163-A, 163-B and 208 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
Rules, as far as may be, in accordance with such rules. The decision of the
High Court is, therefore, liable to be reversed. [96 F-H; 97 A-B] 70 1.(ii) The
Judgment of the High Court is entirely based on its decision on the question of
jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District to
entertain the application. Since there were other contentions raised by the
parties which have not been considered by the High Court, the case is remanded
to the High Court to consider the other contentions raised in the case. If the
High Court finds it necessary to remand the case either to the Tribunal or to
the Regional Transport Authority in the light of the submissions to be made
before it, it is open to the High Court to remand the case either to the
tribunal or to the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be. [97 B-D]
2.(i) Section 45(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides that every
application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of
the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles. The first
proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 45 of the Act provides that if it is proposed to
use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State,
the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region
in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies and in case the
portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately
equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is
proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles. Sub-s. (8) of s. 57 of the Act (as
amended by Tamil Nadu Act No. 3 of 1964) which deals with the procedure to be
followed by the holder of a permit who seeks such variation, does not expressly
prescribe the Regional Transport Authority to which an application for the
variation of a permit has to be made where the route or area in respect of
which extension is sought lies outside the jurisdiction of the Regional
Transport Authority which has granted the permit but within the jurisdiction of
another Regional Transport Authority. The said sub-section is silent about it.
It, however, provides that an application for the variation of a permit which
involves extension or curtailment of the route or area specified in the permit
should be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. In sub-s. 2 of
s. 58 of the Act a similar language is adopted. That sub-section provides that
a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an
application for a permit. An application for renewal of a permit and an
application for variation of a 71 permit have both to be treated as
applications for a new permit and in both the cases the procedure prescribed
for the grant of a new permit has to be followed. The said procedure includes
all the steps mentioned in sub-ss.
(3),(4), (5) and (7) of s. 57 of the Act. The
application should be advertised, representations and objections thereto should
be invited and the application should be considered at a public hearing at
which the applicant and the persons making representations and objections
thereto should be given an opportunity of being heard either in person or by
duly authorised representatives. The question, however, remains whether the
words 'shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit' in
sub-s. (8) of s.57 of the Act should be read as meaning that the Regional
Transport Authority which can entertain an application for variation is the
Regional Transport Authority which can entertain an application for a fresh
permit in respect of a stage carriage for the entire route including the
portion in respect of which extension is sought or that the application for
variation can be made to the Regional Transport Authority which had granted the
permit, but the procedure prescribed under s. 57 of the Act for the grant of a
permit should be followed. [78 E-G; 85 F-H; 86 A-F] 2.(ii) Sub-section (1) of
s. 63 of the Act, however, provides that except as may be otherwise prescribed,
a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall
not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by
the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. Rules 163-A, 163-B and
208 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules framed under the Act provide for an
alternative procedure to be followed when the motor vehicle is to be operated
in two or more regions inside the State of Tamil Nadu as authorised by 5. 63(1)
of the Act. Rule 163-A says that the Regional Transport Authority of any one
region may, subject to the proviso to s.45 of the Act, grant a permit to be
valid in any other region within the State without the countersignature of the
Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each of the other
regions concerned and it shall as soon as possible send copies of proceedings
to the concerned regions. The Regional Transport Authority granting a permit
under sub-rule (1) of Rule 163-A of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules is required
before granting a permit in case of a stage carriage permit to seek the
concurrence of the other 72 Regional Transport Authority. Rule 163-B of Tamil
Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules provides that the provisions of Rule 163-A may be
applied to variation, extension and curtailment of routes and to grant or
refusal of endorsement as they apply to the grant of a permit. It is
significant that this rule does not say that an application for variation would
be subject to the provisions of s.45 of the Act but the provisions of Rule
163-A shall as far as may be applied to variation of a permit. There is no
express requirement in this Rule to comply with the provisions of s.45 of the
Act.
[94 H; 95 A-D] 2.(iii) The words in sub-s.
(8) of s. 57 of the Act "An application to vary the conditions of any
permit... by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or the area
specified in the permit...shall be treated as an application for the grant of a
new permit" create a legal fiction of limited character only for the
purpose of making the procedure prescribed in sub-s. (3) to (7) of s.57
applicable. A permit is a document issued by a certain Regional Transport
Authority authorising the use of a transport vehicle in a particular way. That
can be varied or modified only by the authority issuing it or by an authority
exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction over it and not by another
authority of equal power exercising jurisdiction on another region. In the case
of an inter- regional route also a permit as mentioned earlier should be issued
first by the Regional Transport Authority having territorial jurisdiction as
provided in s. 45 of the Act. If a part of the route mentioned in that permit
lies outside its region but within the jurisdiction of another Regional
Transport Authority, the other Regional Transport Authority may either
countersign the permit or may refuse to countersign it under s. 63(1) of the
Act. If the other Regional Transport Authority countersigns the permit then on
the basis of the said permit it would be open to the holder of the permit to
run his vehicle along the portion of the route lying within the other region.
If the permit is not so countersigned he would not be able to do so. But on the
permit being countersigned, the permit would not cease to be the permit of the
authority which issued it originally. To 'countersign' means 'to sign opposite
to, along side of or in addition to another signature 'or' to add one's
signature to a document (already signed by another) for authentication or
confirmation'. It follows logically that when a variation of 73 the permit is
sought the Regional Transport Authority which issued the permit originally must
be first approached and it is only after it has accorded its sanction to the
variation prayed for, the counter-signature of the permit so varied may be sought
under s. 63(1) of the Act from the Regional Transport Authority. It is always
open to the Regional Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the portion
of the route or area in respect of which extension is sought lies to refuse to
countersign the permit even after an order of variation has been passed by the
authority which had granted the permit originally. If it countersigns such a
permit, the grant of variation by the Regional Transport Authority which has
granted the permit would be effective, otherwise not. At any rate there is
opportunity for both the Regional Transport Authorities to consider whether the
vehicle in respect of which the permit is given can be allowed to move along
the new route or area if the above view is taken. Any other construction of the
provisions of the Act would be contrary to the entire scheme of the Act.
[90 H; 91 A-H; 92 A-E] 2.(iv) Where totally a
new route is sought to be included by an application to vary the conditions of
the permit or the alteration of the route sought by such an application is of
such a drastic character that it becomes substantially a new route, the
application may be treated as r an application for grant of a new permit and
may be for that reason rejected by the Regional Transport Authority which
originally granted it. But merely because in a given case the entire new route
or area which is to be included lies within the jurisdiction of another
Regional Transport Authority or a major portion of the total route (including
the route in respect of which the extension is sought) lies within the
jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority, lt cannot be said that an
application for a new permit has been made and the proviso of s.45 of the Act
would be attracted. Then the proceeding would not be a proceeding for variation
of the existing permit but would be a proceeding for the grant of a new permit.
[93 D-G] Shiv Chand Amolak Chand v. Regional Transport Authority
Delhi Administration v. State of Haryana
& Ors. [1979] 1 S.C.R. 70, referred to.
74 In the instant case, the variation that is
sought affects both the regions since one part of variation relates to
conversion of the town service into a mofussil service and reduction of the
number of trips within the Periyar District and another part relates to
extension and that extension of the route in the Salem District cannot be
granted without reducing the numbers of trips within the Periyar District. The
Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District should have naturally control
over its permit and its sanction should be first obtained before seeking the
countersignature of the Salem Regional Transport Authority. If the Regional
Transport Authority of Periyar District comes to the conclusion that there is
need for doing so it may grant the variation sought for and the said variation
would have to be necessarily again countersigned by the Salem Regional
Transport Authority since the route between Tiruchengode and Salem lies within
the jurisdiction of Salem Regional Transport Authority. Both the Regional
Transport Authorities would ultimately be required to concur for the variation
sought. But if the view expressed by the High Court is accepted on the Salem
Authority sanctioning the variation sought for by the holder of the permit the
proceedings would come to an end and the Regional Transport Authority of
Periyar District would have no opportunity to express its views at all. Since
there would not be publication of the application for variation within the
jurisdiction of the Periyar Regional Transport Authority, the members of the
public, the local authorities, the police authorities etc. within its region
would also have no opportunity to express their views on the merits of the
case. [92 E-H; 93 A-C] & CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1126 of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20th
December, 1985 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 1773, 1774, 1775, 1926,
2040, 2047, 2159 and 2388 of 1985.
S. Srinivasan for the Appellant.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale and A.T.M. Sampath for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 75
VENKATARAMTAH J. The appellant is the holder of a stage carriage permit in
respect of a motor vehicle bearing No.TDL-7755 plying on the town service route
No. 1.A from Erode Railway Station to Tiruchengode via P.S. Park, Ex- Clock
Tower, Sathy Road, Bus Stand, K.N.K. Road, Pallipalayam, S.P.B. Factory, S.P.B.
Colony and Thokkavadi.
The existing route length is 23.7 Kms. At
present the appellant's bus is performing 12 single trips between Erode Railway
Station and Tiruchengode and 8 single trips between Erode Railway Station and
S.P.B. Factory. The total kilometerage per day comes to 358 Kms. The said
permit had been issued by the Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District,
Erode in the State of Tamil Nadu. He applied to the Regional Transport
Authority of the District of Periyar which had issued the permit for its
variation involving :
(1) conversion of the town service into a
mofussil service;
(2) curtailment of the sector from Erode
Railway Station to Erode Bus Stand via P.S. Park and Sathy Road;
(3) curtailment of 10 single trips between
Erode Bus Stand and S.P.B. Factory;
(4) curtailment of 2 single trips between
S.P.B.
Factory and Tiruchengode; and (5) extension
of route from Tiruchengode to Salem via Mallasamudram, Attayampatti and
Ariyanur.
It may be mentioned here that while Erode
Railway Station, P.S. Park and Bus Stand are in Periyar District, Pallipalayam,
S.P.B. Factory, S.P.B. Colony and Tiruchengode are in Salem District of Tamil
Nadu. The existing permit is, therefore, an inter-regional permit. The entire
route between Tiruchengode and Salem in respect of which extension of the
permit was sought is also in Salem District. The application for variation made
by the appellant was duly notified under section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and representations/objections
thereto were invited. Thereafter the Regional Transport 76 Authority heard the
appellant and others who had filed objections and representations and passed a
resolution on June 1, 1984 rejecting the said application. It held inter alia
that the conversion of the town service into a mofussil service and curtailment
of 10 trips between Erode Bus Stand and S.P.B. Factory and 2 trips between
S.P.B. Factory and Tiruchengode were not in the public interest. It also held
that the entire sector in respect of which the extension was sought lay within
Salem District that the said sector was well-served by stage carriage services
and that it was not proper for it to grant the extension since the entire route
between Tiruchengode and Salem lay within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Transport Authority, Salem. On these grounds the Regional Transport Authority
of the District of Periyar found that there was no ground for granting the
variation prayed for. Aggrieved by the resolution of the Regional Transport
Authority of the District of Periyar, the appellant preferred an appeal before
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal'). The Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and
granted the variation (including the extension) applied for with slight
modification. The Tribunal directed that the appellant's bus should perform the
following pattern of trips :
(1) two single trips from Erode Railway
Station to Salem;
(2) four single trips from Erode Bus Stand to
Salem; and (3) four single trips from Erode Railway Station to Tiruchengode.
It directed the Secretary of the Regional
Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode to fix suitable timings within
six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of on
April 19, 1985. In its proceedings dated 4.10.1985 the Secretary, Regional
Transport Authority, Periyar District, Erode fixed the timings as directed by
the Tribunal but since in the meanwhile a stay order had been issued by the
High Court in some civil revision petitions and a writ petition filed by some
of the objectors, Lt directed that the timings fixed would be given effect to
as 77 and when the order of stay was vacated. The revision petitions and the
writ petition filed by some of the objectors against the order of the Tribunal
which are referred to above were disposed of by the High Court on December 20,
1985 by allowing them. The High Court held that the Regional Transport
Authority, Periyar District at Erode had no jurisdiction to entertain the
application for variation since the entire route in respect of which extension
was sought lay within the jurisdiction of the Salem Regional Transport
Authority and, therefore, the proceedings commenced with the said application
were liable to be quashed. On the other contentions raised by the petitioners
before it, it expressed no opinion and left them open. Aggrieved by the
decision of the High Court the appellant has preferred this appeal by special
leave before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The short question for decision in this case
is whether an application for the variation of an existing permit involving the
extension of the route or the area specified in the permit, where the portion
of the route or area in respect of which extension is sought lies entirely
within the jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority which had not granted
the permit, should be made to the Regional Transport Authority which had
granted the permit or to the Regional Transport Authority within whose
jurisdiction the route or area in respect of which extension is sought lies.
The answer to this question depends upon the
construction of some of the relevant provisions found in Chapter IV of the Act.
Section 42 of the Act provides that no owner of a transport vehicle shall use
or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place, whether or not such
vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods, save in accordance with
the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State
Transport Authority or the Inter-State Transport Commission Constituted under
section 63-A of the Act, authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in
the manner in which the vehicle is being used. The expression 'permit' is
defined in sub-section (20) of section 2 of the Act as the document issued by
the Commission or a State or Regional Transport Authority authorising the use
of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage, or stage carriage, or
authorising the owner as a private carrier or public carrier to use such
vehicle. We are concerned in this case with a motor vehicle used as a stage 78
carriage vehicle. Sub-section (29) of section 2 of the Act defines a 'stage
carriage' as a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than six persons
excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate
fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for
stages of the journey. Section 45 of the Act is the general provision governing
the question involved in this case. The material part of that section reads
thus :
"45. General provision as to
applications for permits - (1) Every application for a permit shall be made to
the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use
the vehicle or vehicles;
Provided that if it is proposed to use the
vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the
application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in
which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the
portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately
equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is
proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles;
.........................................."
Sub-section (1) of section 45 of the Act provides that every application for a
permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which
it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles. The first proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 45 of the Act provides that if it is proposed to use the
vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the
application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in
which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies and in case the
portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately
equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is
proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles. In the instant case the appellant had
obtained the permit for plying this stage carriage from the Regional Transport
Authority of Periyar District, since the major portion of the route in respect
of which the said permit had 79 been issued was lying within its jurisdiction.
Sub-section (1) of section 63 of the Act, however, provides that except as may
be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority
of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has
been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region.
The relevant portion of section 63 of the Act
is set out below :
"63. Validation of permits for use
outside region in which granted. - (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a
permit granted by the Regional C Transport Authority of any one region shall
not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by
the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and .........
(2) A Regional Transport Authority when
countersigning the permit may attach to the permit any condition which it might
have imposed if it had granted the permit, and may likewise vary any condition
attached to the permit by the Authority by which the permit was granted. E (3)
The provisions of the Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension
of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of
counter-signatures of permits.... " Rules 163-A, 163-B and 208 of the
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules framed under the Act provide for an alternative
procedure to be followed when the motor vehicle is to be operated in two or
more regions inside the State of Tamil Nadu as authorised by section 63(1) of
the Act. They read thus :
"163-A: (1) The Regional Transport
Authority of any one region may, subject to the provisions of section 45 of the
Act, grant a permit to be valid in any other region within the State without
the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region
or of each of the other regions concerned and it shall as soon as 80 possible,
send copies or proceedings relating to the issue of such permit to the concerned
regions :
Provided that no Regional Transport Authority
shall grant a permit on routes for which the State Transport Authority as the
sole Transport Authority under rule 141 unless such power is delegated by the
State Transport Authority under Rule 140-A.
(2) The Regional Transport Authority granting
a permit under sub-rule (1) shall, before granting a permit - (a) in case of a
stage carriage permit obtain the concurrence of the Regional Transport
Authority concerned, (b) notify, under sub-section (3) of section 57 of THE the
Act, the whole of the route or area which lies within the State and in respect
of which an application for the grant of a permit has been received, by
publishing it on the notice board of the Regional Transport Authority of that
other region and shall hear the applicant or any other L person making
representations.
163-B. The provisions of rule 163-A shall, as
far as may be apply to variation, extension and curtailment of routes and to
grant and renewal of endorsement as they apply to grant of permit.
208. (a) Upon application made in writing by
the holder of any permit, the Transport Authority may, at any time, in its
discretion, vary the permit or any of the conditions thereof subject to the
provisions of sub-rule (b).
(b) If the application is for the variation
of the permit by the inclusion of an additional vehicle or vehicles or if the
grant of variation would authorise transport facilities materially different
from those authorised by the original permit the Transport Authority shall deal
with the application as if it were an application for a permit.
81 Provided that nothing contained in this
rule shall prevent the Transport Authority or its Secretary, if authorised in
this behalf, from summarily rejecting an application for the variation of a
stage carriage permit so as to provide transport facilities on a road which has
been or is certified to be unfit for motor vehicular traffic by an officer not
below the rank of Divisional Engineer of the Highways Department." In the
instant case it is not disputed that the major portion of the route mentioned
in the permit of the appellant was lying within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Transport Authority or Periyar and the smaller portion lay within the
District of Salem. It is also not disputed that if the route in respect of
which extension is sought is added then the major portion of the total route
would be within the District of Salem.
An application for a permit in respect of a
service of stage carriages or to use a particular motor vehicle as a stage
carriage has to be made in accordance with section 46 of the Act and the rules
made thereunder. The application should contain the following particulars,
namely :
(i) the route or routes or the area or areas
to which the application relates ;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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 ;
(iv) the number of vehicles intended to be
kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for special occasions ;
(v) 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; and H 82 (vi) such
other matters as may be prescribed by the rules framed under the Act.
When an application is made for a permit in
respect of a stage carriage service under section 45 of the Act the Regional
Transport Authority concerned has to follow the procedure prescribed in section
57 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of section 57 of the Act reads thus :
"57(3). On receipt of an application for
a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the Regional Transport
Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of
the Authority and shall publish the application or the substance thereof In the
prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which
representation 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 re presentations received will be
considered." Sub-section (4) of section 57 of the Act provides that no
representation in connection with an application referred to in sub-section (3)
thereof shall be considered by the Regional Transport Authority unless it is
made in writing before the appointed date and unless a copy thereof is
furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such
representation. When any representation such as referred to in sub-section (3)
thereof is made the Regional Transport Authority is required by sub-section (5)
thereof to dispose of the application at a public hearing at which the
applicant and the person making the representation shall have an opportunity of
being heard either in person or by a duly authorised representative. Section 47
of the Act requires a Regional Transport Authority to have regard while
considering an application for a stage carriage permit to the following
matters, namely :
(i) the interest of the public generally ;
(ii) the advantages to the public of the
service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to 83 be effected
thereby and any convenience arising A from journeys not being broken ;
(iii) 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 ; B (iv) the benefit to
any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service ;
(v) the operation by the applicant of other
transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him
for permits are pending; and (vi) the condition of the roads included in the
proposed route or area.
The Regional Transport Authority is also
required to take into consideration any representation made by persons already
providing 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 by the State Government or by any local
authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the
proposed route or area lies.
Sub-section (3) of section 47 of the Act
provides that a Regional Transport Authority, may having regard to the matters
mentioned in section 47(1) limit the number of stage carriages generally or of
any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the
region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region.
Section 48 of the Act provides that subject
to the provisions of section 47 of the Act, a Regional Transport Authority may,
on an application made to it under section 46 of the Act, grant a stage
carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such notifications
as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit. It, however, provides that no
such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in
the application. Sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Act authorises the
Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit,
to grant it subject to any or 84 more of the conditions mentioned in clauses
(i) to (xxiii) in sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Act, one such condition
being the condition referred to in clause (xxi) of sub-section (3) of section
48 of the Act which reads thus :
"(xxi) that the Regional Transport
Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month - (a) vary the
conditions of the permit;
(b) attach to the permit further conditions ;
Provided that the conditions specified in
pursuance of clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered
by the original route by more than 24 kilometers, and any variation within such
limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied
that such variation will serve the public convenience and that it is not
expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so
varied or any part thereof." Clause (xxi) of section 48(3) of the Act
refers to the power of variation which the Regional Transport Authority may exercise
suo motu.
The duration and renewal of a stage carriage
permit are governed by section 58 of the Act. That section provides that a
stage carriage permit (other than a temporary permit issued under section 62)
shall be effective without renewal for such period, not less than three years
and not more than five years, as the Regional Transport Authority may specify
in the permit. As provided in sub-section (2) of section 58 of the Act a permit
may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an
application for a permit. A renewal of a permit is in effect the continuation
of the original permit. Section 60 of the Act inter alia provides that the
transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend
it for such period as it thinks fit if the holder of the permit uses or causes
or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit. The
provisions contained in section 60 of the Act apply to 85 revocation and
suspension of counter-signatures of permits by virtue of sub-section (3) of
section 63 of the Act.
Since a stage carriage permit is issued for
the benefit of the general public, it is obligatory that the holder of a stage
carriage permit should operate the stage carriage vehicle in accordance with
the conditions of the permit on the route or area in question. If he wishes any
alteration in the route or area for which he has obtained a permit he has to
get his permit varied in accordance with law. Sub- section (8) of section 57 of
the Act (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act No. 3 of 1964) which deals with the
procedure to be followed by the holder of a permit who seeks such variation,
reads thus :
"57(8). An application to vary the
conditions of any permit, other than 3 temporary permit, by the inclusion of a
new route or routes or a new area or by the variation, extension or curtailment
of the route cr the area specified in the permit, or, in the case of a stage
carriage permit, by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum
or by altering the route covered by it or in the case of a contract carriage
permit or a public carrier's permit, by increasing the number of vehicles
covered by the permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a
new permit." (underlining by us) The controversy involved in this case has
arisen primarily on account of the language used in sub-section (8) of section
57 of the Act. It may be noted that sub-section (8) of section 57 of the Act
does not expressly prescribe the Regional Transport Authority to which an
application for the variation of a permit has to be made where the route or
area in respect of which extension is sought lies outside the jurisdiction of
the Regional Transport Authority which has granted the permit but within the
jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority. The said sub-section is
silent about it. It, however, provides that an application for the variation of
a permit which involves extension or curtailment of the route or area specified
in the permit should be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. In
sub-section H 86 (2) of section 58 of the Act a similar language is adopted.
That sub-section provides that a permit may
be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application
for a per it. In the case of a renewal of a permit, however, there is no
difficulty in determining the Regional Transport Authority to which an
application for renewal is to be made. r It should be made to the Regional
Transport Authority which has granted the permit originally and there is no
room for any controversy in this case. An application for renewal of a permit
and an application for variation of a permit have both to be treated as
applications for a new permit and in both the cases the procedure prescribed for
the grant of a new permit has to be followed. As mentioned earlier the said
procedure includes all the steps mentioned in sub-sections (3), (4), (5) and
(7) of section 57 of the Act. The application should be advertised,
representations and objections thereto should be invited and the application
should be considered at a public hearing at which the applicant and the persons
making representations and objections should be given an opportunity of being
heard either in person or by duly authorised representatives. The question,
however, remains whether the words 'shall be treated as an application for the
grant of a new permit' in sub-section (8) of section 57 of the Act should be
read as meaning that the Regional Transport Authority which can entertain an application
for variation is the Regional Transport Authority which can entertain an
application for a fresh permit in respect of a stage carriage for the entire
route including the portion in respect of which extension is sought or that the
application for variation can be made to the Regional Transport authority which
had granted the permit, but the procedure prescribed under section 57 of the
Act for the grant of a permit should be followed.
The High Court has taken the view in this
case that where the entire proposed route or area in respect of which extension
is sought lies outside the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority
which has granted the primary permit or where the major portion of the total
route (including the route in respect of which extension is sought) is outside
it, the application for variation of a permit must be made to that Regional
Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the entire route or area in
respect of which extension is sought is lying or the major portion of the total
route 87 (including the route or area in respect of which extension is sought)
is lying, irrespective of the fact that the permit whose variation is sought is
issued by a different authority. The relevant portion of the judgment of the
High Court is set out below :
"13. In the case of a new permit, if it
is proposed to use the vehicle in two or more regions lying within the same
State, if the major portion of (?) a particular Regional Transport Authority,
he alone will be the authority to grant the permit. May be, here, we are
concerned with a case of variation and not the grant of a new permit.
For the grant of a I new permit, the Regional
Transport Authority within whose region the major portion of the proposed route
does not lie, cannot assume jurisdiction to grant the permit. A fortiori we
have to take it that he cannot usurp jurisdiction to consider the question of
variation where the major portion of the proposed varied route lies within the
region of another Regional Transport Authority. Otherwise what cannot be
achieved or done while granting a new permit can be achieved or done under the
guise of a variation. This is not permissible. This is the incongruity which
must be avoided and it is only in this sense, it is consistent with the scheme
of the statutory provisions and with the concept of variation itself, to adhere
to the limitations or conditions set out in section 45(1) first proviso even in
the case of a variation or extension on the facts of the present case. Hence
variation in such a contingency will be a mis- conception and certainly,
jurisdiction cannot have foundation on such a misconception. In such a
contingency the very question of granting a variation will stand excluded. It
need not necessarily be a question of altering the distance covered by the
original route by more than any prescribed length. Equally so, it is not a
question of considering the generality of the power of variation by referring
to rule 208.
14. It is a question of construing the scope
of the 88 jurisdiction of an authority to grant variation.
We need not trouble ourselves with the
provision of section 57(8) of the Act when it speaks about the inclusion of a
new route or routes while varying the conditions of a permit other than a
temporary permit. A new route or routes may get included by varying the
conditions of any permit.
But the question is, "When the new route
or routes completely fall outside the region of the Regional Transport
Authority who is granting the permit or varying the permit, can he assume
jurisdiction to indulge in such powers?" With regard to the grant of a new
permit, there could not be any ambiguity in view of the express provisions of
the statute.
The same interdict must govern the question
of variation also. Rule 163-A has not altered the position. Countersignature
after or concurrence before the grant from the other authority has nothing to
do with the primary jurisdiction to consider the very grant which has been
clearly set in section 45(1) first proviso. At the risk of repetition, it must
be pointed out, rule 163A is subject to the provisions of section 45 and by the
force of rule 163B read with rule 163A, the implies cations of section 45(1)
first proviso will necessarily govern even the question of variation. Hence
under the guise of variation the Regional Transport Authority who granted the
permit cannot indulge in variation or extension so as to annex to the original
permit a new route or routes the major portion of which or the totality of
which lies outside his region." Section 45 of the Act deals with the
territorial jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority. As far as their
powers and responsibilities are concerned, all Regional Transport Authorities
have the same powers and responsibilities under the Act. Any order passed by a
Regional Transport Authority either granting a permit or refusing to grant the
permit is appealable under section 64 of the Act to the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal. Any person aggrieved by any variation of the conditions
attached to a permit may also prefer an appeal against the order of a Regional
Transport 89 Authority to the Tribunal. Thus the Tribunal has the power to
control the actions of every Regional Transport Authority within the State.
Sub-section (8) of section 57 of the Act provides for the procedure to be
followed in connection with a variation, extension or curtailment of the route
or the area specified in the permit. It also states that an application seeking
such variation, extension or curtailment should be treated as an application
for the grant of a new permit, and the effect of this clause has been explained
by this Court in Shiv Chand Amolak Chand v. Regional Transport Authority Anr.,
[1984] 1 S.C.R. 288 at pages 297 to 300 thus:
"There can be little doubt that under terms
of subsection (8) of section 57, this application of the appellants was liable
to be 'treated as an application for the grant of a new permit.' But the
question is : for what purpose and what of the provisions of the Act could be
said to be attracted to this application by reason of the requirement that it
should be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. The argument
of the respondents was that no application for grant of a new permit can be
entertained by the Regional Transport Authority under section 48, unless the
number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted for the particular
route is first determined- ed by the Regional Transport Authority under
sub-section (3) of section 47, and, therefore, the consequence of treating the
application of the appellants for extension of the route as an application for
grant of a new permit was that no extension could be granted by the Regional F
Transport Authority unless the requirement of section 47 sub-section (3) was
first complied with and the number of stage carriages for which permits may be
granted on the extended route was determined under that provision. But we do
not think this argument is well-founded.
.................................................
But we do not think that the prescription in
sub- section (8) of section 57 that an application for varying the condition of
a permit by extension 90 of the route shall be treated as an application for
grant of a new permit has the effect of equating such an application with an
application for grant of a new per it for all purposes so as to attract the
applicability of sub-section (3) of section 47. Section 57 deals with the
procedure in applying for and granting permits and sub-sections (3) to (7) lay
down the procedure which must be followed in considering and deciding, inter
alia, an application for grant of a stage carriage permit. Sub-section (8)
follows upon sub-sections (3) to (7) and is part of the same section which has
a definite object and scheme of providing the procedure for considering and
granting an application and, therefore, when it provides that an application to
vary the conditions of a permit by the inclusion of new route or routes or new
area or by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by
altering the route covered by it shall be treated as an application for grant
of a new stage carriage permit it is obviously intended to incorporate and make
applicable the procedure set out in the preceding Sub-sections (3) to 7 to such
an application. The context in which sub-section (8) occurs and its
juxtaposition with-subsections (3) to (7) in section 57 clearly indicate that
what is sought to be made applicable to an application referred to in
subsection (8) by treating it as an application for grant of a new permit, is
the procedure set out in sub-sections (3) to (7) of section 57 and nothing
more.... " (underlining by us) This Court ultimately in the above case
came to the conclusion that an application for variation of a permit by the inclusion
of a new route could be considered without following the procedure prescribed
under sub-section (3) of section 47 of the Act which was otherwise a mandatory
requirement in the case of an application for a permit in respect of a route or
a specified area within a region made for the first time. The words in
sub-section (8) of section 57 of the Act "An application to vary the
conditions of any 91 permit....by the variation, extension or curtailment of
the route or the area specified in the permit.... shall be treated as an
application for the grant of a new permit" create a legal fiction of
limited character only for the purpose of making the procedure prescribed in
sub-sections (3) to (7) of section 57 applicable. A permit is a document issued
by a certain Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a transport
vehicle in a particular way and in this case it is issued for the purpose of
operating a stage carriage by a transport authority. That can be varied or
modified only by the authority issuing it or by an authority exercising
appellate or revisional jurisdiction over it and not by another authority of
equal power exercising jurisdiction on another region. In the case of an inter-
regional route also a permit as mentioned earlier should be issued first by the
Regional Transport Authority having territorial jurisdiction as provided in
section 45 of the Act. If a part of the route mentioned in that permit lies
outside its region but within the jurisdiction of another Regional Transport
Authority, the other Regional Transport Authority may either countersign the
permit or may refuse to countersign it under section 63(1) of the Act. If the
other Regional Transport Authority countersigns the permit then on the basis of
the said permit it would be open to the holder of the permit to run his vehicle
along the portion of the route lying within the other region. If the permit is
not so countersigned he would not be able to do so. But on the permit being
countersigned, the permit would not cease to be the permit of the authority
which issued it originally. To 'countersign' means 'to sign opposite to, along
side of or in addition to another signature 'or' to add one's signature to a
document (already signed by another) for authentication or confirmation'. It
follows logically that when a variation of the permit is sought the Regional
Transport Authority which issued the permit originally must be first approached
and it is only after it has accorded its sanction to the variation prayed for,
the counter-signature of the permit so varied may be sought under section 63(1)
of the Act from the other Regional Transport Authority. It is always open to
the Regional Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the portion of the
route or area in respect of which extension is sought lies to refuse to
countersign the permit even after an order of variation has been passed by the
authority which had granted the permit originally. If it 92 countersigns such a
permit, the grant of variation by the Regional Transport Authority which has
granted the permit would be effective, otherwise not. At any rate there is
opportunity for both the Regional Transport Authorities to consider whether the
vehicle in respect of which the permit is given can be allowed to move along
the new route or area if the above view is taken. On the other hand, if the
view taken by the High Court is accepted, it would be enough if an application
is made for sanctioning variation of the permit by the inclusion of a new route
or area in the permit to the Regional Transport Authority within whose
jurisdiction the new route or area lies and if that authority sanctions such
variation it would be unnecessary to seek the approval of the Regional
Transport Authority which had granted the permit originally to such variation
because there is no provision which requires the holder of the permit to
approach the original, authority at all corresponding to section 63(1) of the
Act which compels him to approach the original authority after seeking the
approval of the Regional Transport Authority within whose jurisdiction the new
route or area is situated. The construction of the provisions of the Act in
this way would be contrary to the entire scheme of the Act. To illustrate the
above point let us take the facts of this very case. The Regional Transport
Authority of Periyar District had granted the permit originally taking into
consideration the needs of the people along the route between Erode Railway
Station and Tiruchengode and it had also fixed the number of trips to be made on
the different sectors of the same route within its region. If an application
for variation for the said permit is made to that authority it would be open to
it to consider in the light of the needs of the people of the locality whether
it is in the public interest to grant extension beyond Tiruchengode upto Salem
or not after curtailing the number of trips on certain sectors. If the Regional
Transport Authority of Periyar District comes to the conclusion that there is
need for doing so it may grant the variation sought for and the said variation
would have to be necessarily again countersigned by the Salem Regional
Transport Authority since the route between Tiruchengode and Salem lies within
the jurisdiction of Salem Regional Transport Authority. Both the Regional
Transport Authorities would ultimately be required to concur for the variation
sought. But if the view expressed by the High Court is accepted on the 93 Salem
Authority sanctioning the variation sought for by the holder of the permit the
proceedings would come to an end and the Regional Transport Authority of
Periyar District would have no opportunity to express its views at all. Since
there would not be publication of the application for variation within the
jurisdiction of the Periyar Regional Transport Authority, the members of the
public, the local authorities, the police authorities etc. within its region
would also have no opportunity to express their views on the merits of the
case. It may happen in a given case that people for whose benefit the route was
opened and the permit was given originally may be denied the transport
facilities altogether by virtue of the variation of the permit being sanctioned
by another Regional Transport Authority without their knowledge. Virtually the
order of the Salem Regional Transport Authority granting variation would amount
to the grant of a fresh permit altogether and not the variation of a permit
granted originally by Periyar Regional Transport Authority. In an appropriate
case, as observed in Shiv Chand Amolak Chand's case (supra) that where totally
a new route is sought to be included by an application to vary the conditions
of the permit or the alteration of the route sought by such an application is
of such a drastic character that it becomes substantially a new route, the
application may be treated as an application for grant of a new permit and may
be for that reason rejected by the Regional Transport Authority which
originally granted it. But merely because in a given case the entire new route
or area which is to be included lies within the jurisdiction of another
Regional Transport Authority or a major portion of the total route (including
the route in respect of which the extension is sought) lies within the
jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority, it cannot be said that an
application for a new permit has been made and the proviso of section 45 of the
Act would be attracted. Then the proceeding would not be a proceeding for
variation of the existing permit but would be a proceeding for the grant of a
new permit. If it is an application for a fresh permit in respect of the same
bus, then the question would be different as observed by this Court in Delhi
Administration v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 70. In that case
Haryana Roadways held inter-State permits to operate stage carriages between
Delhi and Karnal. These permits had been countersigned by Delhi Administration.
Haryana Roadways then obtained fresh permits 94 to ply the same stage carriages
from Karnal to Chandigarh from the Regional Transport Authority at Karnal. It
was contended that it amounted to variation of the original inter-State permit
and without the concurrence of Delhi Administration the stage carriages could
not be operated from Delhi to Chandigarh with the aid of the fresh permits
referred to above. This Court negatived it by observing at pages 77 & 78
thus :
"5. We also find no force in the plea
that the plying of vehicles by the Haryana Roadways beyond the inter-State
route under valid permits issued by the competent authority would amount to an
'extension' of the route such as is prohibited by the Act. Reliance in support
of the plea was placed on sub-s. (8) of s. 57 of the Act which lays down:
..............................................
As pointed out by the High Court, the
language of the sub-section applies only to a case where the permit-holder
applies for the variation of the conditions of his permit by inclusion of a new
route or routes or a new area or by increasing the number of services above the
specified maximum. In the case before us this situation does not arise at all
inasmuch as the Haryana Roadways has not applied for the variation of any
permit in any way and has, on the other hand, taken and exploited quite another
permit for an entirely different route from another competent authority. Apart
from sub-sec. (8) above mentioned, we have not been referred to any provision
of the Act in support of the plea under consideration which, therefore,
fails." But in the present case, the application is not for a fresh
permit, but for the variation of an existing permit.
The High Court tried to distinguish the
decision in Shiv Chand Amolak Chand's case (supra) by observing that in the
State of Madhya Pradesh from which the said case arose there might not have
been rules corresponding to rules 163-A, 163- B and 208 of the Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules. In our view the presence of such rules would not make any
difference at all. These Rules provide for a procedure alternative to what is
prescribed by section 63(1) of the Act. Rule 163-A says that 95 the Regional
Transport Authority of any one region may, subject to the proviso to section 45
of the Act, grant a permit to be valid in any other region within the State
without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other
region or of each of the other regions concerned and it shall as soon as
possible send copies of proceedings to the concerned regions. The Regional
Transport Authority granting a permit under sub-rule (1) of rule 163-A of Tamil
Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules is required before granting a permit in case of a
stage carriage permit to seek the concurrence of the other Regional Transport
Authority. Rule 163-B of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules provides that the
provisions of rule 163-A may be applied to variation, extension and curtailment
of routes and to grant or refusal of endorsement as they apply to the grant of
a permit. It is significant that this rule does not say that an application for
variation would be subject to the provisions of section 45 of the Act but the
provisions of rule 163-A shall as far as may be applied to variation of a
permit. There is no express requirement in this rule to comply with the
provisions of section 45 of the Act. In any event it is difficult to accept the
view of the High Court that when the new route or routes in respect of which
variation is sought completely falls outside the region of the Regional
Transport Authority which has granted the permit or where the major portion of
the total route lies outside its jurisdiction its power to grant variation
stands excluded. This view is directly contrary to the express provision
contained in section 57(8) of the Act which authorises every Regional Transport
Authority to grant the variation of a permit by the inclusion of a new route.
The incongruities that may arise from the view expressed by the High Court
would become more obvious when we take some illustrations for consideration.
Take the case of an inter- regional route which is 70 kilometres in length out
of which a portion measuring 50 kilometres lies within region 'A' and remaining
portion measuring 20 kilometres in region 'B' and the permit is granted by the
Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over region 'A'. Let us assume
that the holder of the permit applies for an extension of the route by 10
kilometres which entirely lies in the region 'B'. In this case, if the view of
the High Court is to be accepted as correct, the application for the variation
of the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority having 96
jurisdiction over region 'A' would have to be made to the Regional Transport
Authority having jurisdiction over region 'B', even though an application for a
fresh permit to ply a stage carriage on the entire route can be made to the
Regional Transport Authority of region 'A' as the major portion of the route
would still be in region 'A'. Secondly in a case like the one before us the
variation that is sought affects both the regions since one part of variation
relates to conversion of the town service into a mofussil service and reduction
of the number of trips within the Periyar District and another part relates to
extension and that extension of the route in the Salem District cannot be
granted without reducing the numbers of trips within the Periyar District. In
this case the Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District should have
naturally control over its permit and its sanction should be first obtained
before seeking the counter-signature of the Salem Regional Transport Authority.
Let us assume that by the application the holder of a permit seeks the
variation of his permit by the curtailment of a portion of the route which
entirely lies within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority which
has not granted the permit but only countersigned the permit. If the view of
the High Court is to be accepted even in such a case the application for grant
of variation by curtailment may have to be made to the other Regional Transport
Authority and not to the Regional Transport Authority which has granted the
permit since the portion in respect of which curtailment is sought lies
exclusively within the jurisdiction of that authority. More than all, the
permit granted by one authority cannot be allowed to be modified by another. In
view of these considerations we hold that section 45 of the Act does not apply
to the case of a variation of a permit and that when a variation of a permit is
sought the application for the grant of such variation should be made to the
Regional Transport Authority which has granted the permit even though the
entire route or area in respect of which extension is sought lies in another
region or a major portion of the entire route (including the new route or area)
lies within another region. On such application being made it is the duty of
the Regional Transport Authority which has granted the permit to consider
whether the variation sought should be sanctioned in the public interest or
not. If that Regional Transport Authority grants variation prayed for then the
11 concurrence of the other Regional Transport Authority would 97 have to be
sought in accordance with either section 63(1) of the Act or where there are
rules made corresponding to rules 163-A, 163-B and 208 of Tamil Nadu Motorl Vehicles
Rules, as far as may be in accordance with such rules. The decision of the High
Court is, therefore, liable to be reversed.
It is seen that the judgment of the High
Court is entirely based on its decision on the question of jurisdiction of the
Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District to entertain the application.
We are informed that there were other contentions raised by the parties which
have not been considered by the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the
Judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court to consider
the other contentions raised in the case. If the High Court finds it necessary
to remand the case either to the Tribunal or to the Regional Transport
Authority in the light of the submissions to be made before it, it is open to
the High Court to remand the case either to the Tribunal or to the Regional
Transport Authority, as the case may be.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will
be no order as to costs.
M.L.A. Appeal allowed.
Back
