R INDIRA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is a stage carriage operator in South Arcot District. The Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot at Cuddalore, the first respondent hearing invited applications, under S. 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of a stage carriage permit in respect of one bus to ply on the town service route Panrutti to Arasur (via) Gandhi Road, Padupettai and Anathur with independent shuttle trips between Panrutti and Akkadavalli (via) Gandhi Road, Pudupet, Chinnapet and Thiruthuraiyur. The appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein and five others applied for the grant of the permit. All the applications were notified under S. 57 (3) of the Act, and they were taken up for hearing on 26-4-1979. After hearing, orders were served. The orders were passed on 28-8-1979, granting two permits on the route instead of one as notified by the 1st respondent as set out in his Order is as follows: "Now, I find that traffic potentiality has increased. The traffic survey conducted by the Government has revealed that one bus is required to serve Akkadavalli which is at present unserved. As such I feel that by the introduction of one town service alone on this route which links both Akkadavalli and Arasur to Panrutti was not possible to manage the traffic offering on this route. ... ... ... ... ... Accordingly two applicants have to be selected among the above said 8 applicants for awarding these two permits." As against the grant of the said two permits, the appellant, who is one of the unsuccessful applicants, filed W. P. No. 4646 of 1979 mainly contending that the order of the 1st respondent dated 288-1979 is illegal in that, the 1st respondent who should have decided about the increase in the number of stage carriages before calling for applications under Section 57(2) has actually done so after calling 57 (2) and the notification under Section 57 (3) and after the actual hearing had been completed.

(2.) The writ Petition was resisted by the respondents contending that it is not incumbent on the 1st respondent to decide about the number of buses before calling for applications under Section 57 (2), that having regard to the time lag between the inviting of the applications and the hearing under Section 57 (2), the public interest may warrant the increase of a stage carriage on a particular route, and therefore, the 1st respondent can decide about the number of stage carriages under Section 47 (3) even after the hearing of these applications had been notified under S. 57 (3) and also after the hearing of these applications and that it is not necessary that before the notification under S. 57 (3), the actual number of stage carriages must be fixed. It was contended by the respondents that in any event the appellant is not an aggrieved person as she is not likely to be affected by the increase in the number of stage carriages from one to two, and that the affidavit in support of the writ petition also does not show any justifiable grievance, and therefore, even assuming that the grant of two permits when the hearing was in relation to the grant of one permit is illegal, the illegality cannot be questioned by the appellant who cannot be said to be a person aggrieved.

(3.) Two questions arose for consideration in the writ petition, namely, (1) what is the stage at which the Regional Transport Authority, the 1st respondent, has to fix the limit relating to the number of stage carriages? and (2) whether the appellant is an aggrieved person at whose instance the grants made in favour of respondents 2 and 3 could be interfered with?