AUTO TRANSPORT UNION LTD Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Messrs P.S.N. Motors (Private) Ltd. held permit in respect of stage carriage KLR. 1128 that had permitted the bus to run the distance of about 56 miles between Palai & Alwaye. The permit holder then applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, to extend the route from Alwaye to Fort-Cochin and the extension prayed involved the distance of about 20 miles. That application was published in the Gazette and the writ petitioner along with some others made representations against the extension. The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, allowed the permit on May 5, 1959. The order is short one and reads as follows:-

(2.) In support of the first argument the writ petitioners learned Advocate has relied upon Sri Rama Vilas Service v. Road Traffic Board, AIR 1948 Mad. 400 at p. 407 and Moti Lal v. Uttar Pradesh Government, AIR 1951 Allahabad 257 at pp. 263 & 321, where it has been observed that the interests of the public mean the interests of the travelling public, for whose convenience and need the stage carriages are provided for. The learned advocate has urged that the grant of the permit for the convenience of the Hill produce trade is not covered by the aforesaid expression, the extension is ultra vires and should be held to be such. He further relies on Onkarmal v. R.T. Authority, AIR 1956 Cal. 490 at 495, where it has been observed that the permit granted on considerations other than those covered by the section would be invalid. There is, however, a large number of judicial decisions that the words have regard to the following matters in S.47 indicate the section not to be exhaustive with the result that Road Transport Authorities can take into consideration other matters that are allied or germane to the question to be decided. That proposition is supported by N. Transport Co. v. S.T. Authority, AIR 1959 Madhya Bharat 320, Doraswami v. Natesa AIR 1959 Mad. 453 , Naib Transport (P) Ltd. v. S.N. Mukherjee, AIR 1959 Cal. 447 , Dholpur Coop. T. & M. Union v. Appellate Authority, AIR 1955 Raj. 19, M/s. S. N. Transport Co. v. State Transport Authority, AIR 1957 Cal. 638 , Naib Transport (Pr.) Ltd. v. S.N. Mukherji AIR 1958 Cal. 652 and Padmanabhan v. The State, AIR 1956 Mad. 349 and follows Ramayya v. State of Madras, AIR 1952 Mad. 300 at p. 305 where Govinda Menon, J., has observed as follows:-