REVANAPPA SANGAPPA Vs. R T A BIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred which arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is :

(2.) A brief advertence to the factual antecedents of the case may be necessary: Revanappa Shangappa Motti, appellant herein was granted by the first respondent-Regional Transport Authority (R. T. A.) a permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Aurad to Bidar pursuant to the proceeding on Subject No. 4 of 1968 at the meeting of the R.T.A. held on 27-12-1968. The Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, third-respondent herein, challenged the said grant in Appeal 127 of 1969 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, second respondent herein. The appellate order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal was, however, quashed by this Court in W. P. 2386 of 1970 and this Court directed the R.T.A. to consider and dispose of the appellant's application in accordance with S. 47 (3) of the Act. In the proceedings on remand, though the R. T. A. came to the conclusion that there was need of the travelling public and though if negatived the contention urged before it by the third respondent that there was a clash of timings, it, however, rejected appellant's application on the ground that appellant had, allegedly, incurred the disqualification under Rule 104 (A) (III)(b). The R. T. A. however, accepting the route-survey report and the police report in this behalf resolved to issue permits for 4 trips on the said route,-one permit for one trip-and directed the R.T.O. to notify the route and call for applications. This order of the R. T. A. rejecting the appellant's application was again challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which, while holding the rejection unsupportable however, directed the consideration and disposal afresh of appellant's application along with the applications to be received in pursuance to the notification under S. 57 (2) of the Act inviting applications. This order made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was challenged by the appellant before this Court in W.P. 5651 of 1964. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the preliminary hearing stage taking the view that there was no error of jurisdiction committed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in passing the impugned order. Appellant preferred the present writ appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge. It is in the course of this appeal that the bench has referred the above question for the opinion of the full bench We have heard Sri H. B. Datar, learned counsel for appellant. Respondents were unrepresented at the hearing.

(3.) The question referred posits 3 sequential events : (1) that there is an application 'suo motu' at the instance of an applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit over a new route respecting which there has been no prior determination under S. 47(3) of the Act by the R.T A ; (ii) that subsequent to the making of that application the R.T.A. makes a determination under S. 47 (3) of the Act fixing the number of permits to be issued over that route ; and (iii) that notwithstanding the fact that the said determination under S. 47 (3), us to the number of permits to be issued over that route, the R. T. A. proceeds-without inviting applications for permits over that route-to consider and dispose of at its next meeting the said suo motu application on merits. The question posed is whether such a disposal would be in accordance with law.