N SAMBANDAM Vs. S KHADAR SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed against the judgment of Srinivasan J. , issuing a writ of certiorari and quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, madras, dated 29th April 1959, granting a stage carriage permit to Sambandam, the appellant herein. The route in question is between Vellore and Arcot, and it has been conceded throughout that the traffic over the route has been at all times very heavy and wayside passengers suffered greater difficulties than those at the termini to get accommodation in the existing bus service. Previous to the grant of the permit now in question, the entire stage carriage service over the route was in the hands of Khader Sheriff, the first respondent in the first of the appeals mentioned above. He was running seven buses, and on 26th May 1958, he was even able to secure from the Regional Transport Authority, Vellore, permission to increase the seating capacity of his buses and to run additional trips the number of trips per day having been increased from 56 to 70. Even before the increase of trips granted, there was a general direction issued by the Government to increase the existing number of stage carriages over the route by 25 per cent. But the demand over the route in question being greater, the Regional Transport Authority proposed to put four additional buses on it and he invited representations to the proposal. Khader Sheriff, naturally, objected to the addition of buses, and, on 4th july 1957, the authority decided to solve the problem by permitting additional trips to the existing operator (which was given effect to as we said, on 26th May 1958) and by deciding to increase the number of buses on the route by one. The relevant portion of the order on that occasion runs thus : "arcot being a big business centre with close proximity to the district headquarters the traffic demand on this route is very heavy. The wayside passengers between Vellore and Arcot find it difficult to get the required accommodation in the existing buses. A careful study of the increased population of this area, the progressive implementation of local development plans and the all round demand for travel facilities reveals that the present requirements of traffic needs warrant the introduction of one additional bus on this route. Hence the introduction of one additional bus is approved, in addition to the grant of additional singles for the existing buses on Vellore Arcot route" applications were then called for in respect of one permit thus decided to be granted. Forty persons applied, and Khader Sheriff was one amongst them. It was during that time that a part of the previous decision, namely that of granting additional trips to the existing operator, was implemented. The applications filed by the several operators were considered at a meeting of the Regional Transport authority on 26th June 1958. Marks were allotted to the various applicants in accordance with G. O. No. 1298, dated 28th April 1958. Khader Sheriff obtained five marks and another operator (Uthandi Mudaliar) obtained an equal number of marks. There were several others who secured marks somewhere near. Khader sheriff, with his predominating influence over the route, evidently felt his chances of securing the additional permit to be a bit remote. He therefore took up the stand that, as the route was well served by him, there was no need to increase the number of buses even by one bus. The Regional Transport Authority, in a laconic order, after referring to that contention, said

(2.) FROM what we have stated above, it will be clear that the order of the Regional transport Authority can hardly be regarded as one in accordance with law. That authority had, no doubt, the power under S. 47 (3) to limit the number of stage carriages. It has, in exercise of that power limited the number of carriages over the route to 8. After so doing, it proceeded to call for applications for the issue of one permit, seven having been already held by Khader Sheriff, and received both applications and representations under S. 57 in the matter of issue of the additional permit. It is certainly inappropriate at the stage of considering the applications under S. 57 (3), for the Regional Transport Authority to take up the question of limiting the number of buses over the route under S. 47 (3) afresh. This point need not require any elaboration, as the Supreme Court, in a recent judgment reported in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey, AIR 1963 SC 64 at p. 67, has said-

(3.) BUT the more important question in the present case is one on which the decision of Srinivasan J. is rested namely, whether the order of the Regional transport Authority can be challenged by way of an appeal to the State Transport appellate Tribunal. There can be little doubt that, where there is an order of the simpliciter, limiting the number of stage carriages under the provisions of S. 47 (3), it would be a general order against which no individual person can have a grievance. It is in other words an administrative order not affecting a party, but merely regulating the stage carriage service over a route. Such an order would not be subject to an appeal under S. 64. But the matter, in our opinion, will stand on a different footing, where, as in this case, that stage is passed and the Regional transport Authority had called for applications, and while disposing of those applications, he proceeds to fix the number of buses, and, as a consequence, passes an order of rejecting the applications. The order at that stage cannot be regarded as general order of administrative character--one in respect of which nobody can have a grievance. That will undoubtedly be an order rejecting the applications of the various operators for the issue of a permit which had once been decided to be issued, but later withheld at the time of disposal of the applications under S. 57. In the present case, the very terms of the order say that the applications of the several applicants are rejected. The reason given for that order was, no doubt, not one germane to Ss. 48 and 57, but one coming under S. 47 (3 ). But, even so, the order can only be regarded as one rejecting the applications. Section 64 which confers a right of appeal to a persons says-