PABDUL AZIZ SAHIB Vs. MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner before us was granted a permit by the Regional Transport Authority for the route between Kampli and Bellary. Against the said grant the matter was taken in appeal to the State Transport Authority. The State Transport authority cancelled the permit on the ground that the Regional Transport authority violated the provisions of Section 57(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Transport Authority thereupon sent the matter back tot the Regional Transport Authority with a direction to renotify all applications which were before it for the permit. Pending decision of this matter the State Transport authority granted a temporary permit to the Petitioner to ply his bus in the said route. The matter was thereupon taken on appeal to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal both against the substantive order passed by the State Transport Authority and the interlocutory order passed by it permitting the Petitioner to ply his bus temporarily between Kampli and Bellary. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal dismissed both the appeals. Against the decision of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal in so far as it related to the interlocutory order, a writ petition was filed before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal against the substantive order of the State Transport Authority sent the matter back to the Regional Transport Authority with a direction to renotify all the applications which were before it for the grant of permit.

(2.) The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner urged two grounds before us. In the first place, he contended that the view taken by the State transport Authority and which view was confirmed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, viz. that the advertisement was defective inasmuch as it did not mention the date and time of hearing of the applications for permit, was not correct. The learned Advocate relied on a decision of this Court wherein it has been held that it is not mandatory upon the Regional Transport Authority to mention in the same notification the date and the time of the hearing of the applications. In the second place, the learned Advocate contended before us that the Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the State Transport Authority have taken the view that the Regional Transport Authority has given no reasons for its decision and the said view was erroneous. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner contended before us that from the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority it would appear that the said authority has given reasons for its decision to grant the permit to the petitioner.

(3.) In my opinion, it is not necessary to go into the first contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, inasmuch as the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal as also of the State Transport Authority can be justified on the other ground, viz. that the order of the Regional Transport Authority violated the provisions of Section 57(7) of the Vehicles Act. Section 57(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that when a Regional Transport Authority refuses an application for a permit of any kind, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal. Both the Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the State Transport Authority has given no reason for refusing the applications of the other claimants for the permit. Although it would not be strictly correct to say that the Regional Transport Authority has given no reason for refusing the applications of the other claimants for the permit in question, the reasons given by the said authority are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In a recent decision of this Court, (Hanuman Transport v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 Mys 72), this Court held, agreeing with the view which was taken by Mr. Justice Sinha of the Calcutta High Court, that the Regional Transport Authority cannot take into account, in determining whether or not a permit should be granted, matters utterly irrelevant and beyond the scope of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On the facts of that case, however, it was held that the consideration in question was not irrelevant or beyond the scope of Section 47. In the present case, I am of the opinion, the considerations which guided the Regional Transport Authority in granting the permit to the petitioner were utterly irrelevant and beyond the scope of section 47. At this stage I should refer to the provisions of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It provides that the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regarded to the following matters, namely :