BRIJLAL MISRA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 holds a Permit --being permit No. 408 for plying a stage carriage on Kalpi-Kotra route. This permit is valid upto October 1958. The petitioner No. 2 also holds a permit being permit No. 228 for plying a stage carriage on the same route. This permit is valid upto 1960. The petitioner's allegation is that this route was created in 1950 and originally the petitioner No. 2 alone was granted a Permit for running the stage carriage on this route. The petitioner No. 1 however began plying his stage carriage on the route from 1952 when the strength was increased by one more vehicle on this route. Certain representations were made for recognising certain routes and for increasing the strength of carriages on certain routes. Because of those representations the Secretary. Regional Transport Authority. Kanpur, by his letter No. 1388 RTA/80/Strength dated 7-10-1955, wrote to the District Magistrate of Jhansi for his views on the matter. It is alleged that in none of those representations was there any suggestion that the strength on Kalpi Kotra route be increased, nor was the opinion of the District Magistrate invited for the increase of the strength on this route. Yet the Acting District Magistrate of Jalaun Sri S.P. Arren, it is alleged, sent a letter in reply to the aforesaid letter of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, suggesting that the strength on Kalpi Kotra route be increased. The matter of the increase of strength of Kalpi Kotra route was put up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority sometime in May 1957. The petitioners' case is that they did not receive any notice nor had they any opportunity to make representations against the increase in the strength on the route. The petitioners on coming to know that the aforesaid agenda was fixed for consideration in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority reached the Place where the meeting was being held and sent a slip that they wanted to make certain representations against the proposed increase in the strength on the Kalpi-Kotra route, but, the petitioners' allegation is that, they were neither called in the meeting nor were allowed any opportunity to make representations against the increase in the strength. The Regional Transport Authority passed a resolution) in this meeting that the strength on the Kalpi-Kotra route be increased by two more stage cardages and in pursuance of that resolution applications were invited from different persons for grant of permits for the two more stage carriages on the Kalpi-Kotra route. These applications have now been gazetted in the U. P. Gazette of 12th October 1957 for receiving objections. The petitioners allege that they have sent a representation that the strength should not too increased and that 14th November 1957 was fixed for the consideration of the applications made for grant of permits on the two vacancies cheated by them. It is alleged that there was no demand of the public or any authority for increase of the strength on the Kalpi-Kotra route and there are not even sufficient passengers for the two stage carriages already plying and any increase would adversely affect the rights of the petitioners. It is alleged that Kotra is a small village with a population of about 2000 to 2500 persons and there is not much traffic on this route. The complaint of the petitioners is that the decision to increase the strength has been made arbitrarily and without considering the point of view of the persons who are already providing transport facilities on this route. On these facts the petitioners have moved this petition.

(2.) Mr. S. O. Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioners has made two submissions. His first submission is that before the strength of the route could be increased it was incumbent upon the Regional Transport Authority to have considered the representation of the petitioners and their failure to give the petitioners an opportunity of making any such representation makes the resolution increasing the strength illegal and without jurisdiction. In this connection it is also complained that the Petitioners reached the place where the meeting was held and wanted an Opportunity to be heard which was refused arbitrarily, and it is complained that the principles of natural justice have also been infringed inasmuch as the strength has been increased without hearing the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that they were entitled to be heard before file resolution increasing the strength was passed for two reasons. Firstly, it is said that Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down that before the strength is increased the persons who are already plying their stage carriages on the route should be given an opportunity of being heard. Section 47(3) runs as follows:

(3.) AS a second string to his bow Mr. Khare has submitted that even if his arguments with respects to Section 47 (3) of the Act be not accepted the principles of natural justice require that a party should be given an opportunity of showing cause against a decision which is likely to affect his right. Mere increase of the strength on the route on paper would hot affect the right of the persons who are already plying their stage carriages from before. Their rights would be affected only if and when permits for the additional or the increased number of vehicles are given. Section 47 (1) of the Act requires that before such permits are given the Regional Transport Authority shall take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities. In fact according to the allegations of the petitioners themselves the applications for additional permits have been gazetted in U. P. Gazette of 12-10-1957 and objections have been invited from all persons whose rights are being affected including the petitioners. The petitioners can and in fact have objected to the issue of the permits. Their objections that there are not sufficient passengers even for the two stage carriages already plying and therefore a further increase is not desirable can be and shall be considered by the Regional Transport Authority at the time when they will be considering whether or not to issue the additional permits to the applicants for the same. Section 47 (1) (c) provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall in considering an application for a stage carriage permit have regard to the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be served. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the Regional Transport Authority has already decided that the strength should be increased by two, the only thing that they will now consider is as to whom the permits for the same be issued. I do not agree with this contention. The language of Section 47 (1) (c) is very clear and even at the time when the Regional Transport Authority is considering the applications which are gazetted, on merits they are also required to consider the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to Operate in near future. The Regional Transport Authority has to consider all the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 47 (1) of the Act. They will also consider the petitioners' objection that there was no scope for the increase of permits on the Kalpi-Kotra route, along with other matters mentioned in Section 47 (1) from (a) to (f). It will be for the Regional Transport Authority to decide as to what weight should be given to this objection. It was held in the case of C. S.S Motor Service, Tenkasi v. The State of Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 279 (B) that with reference to Section 47 (1) (c) adequacy of extension of service can be taken into account only in so far as it is in the interests of the public. The factor to be considered is not whether the existing operators will suffer by competition but whether extension of service will be in the interests of the public. It was held in the case of Dholpur Co-operative Transport and Multipurpose Union Ltd, v. Appellate Authority, Rajasthan, AIR 1955 Raj. 19 (C) that Section 47 lays down the general conditions regard will be paid to which in granting or refusing a stage carriage permit. These conditions are not necessarily exhaustive in details. That being so even if it be conceded for a moment, though I have held to the contrary that Section 47 (1) (c) does not cover such objections as the petitioners have the Regional Transport Authority can consider the petitioners' objection on the ground that the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 47 (1) are not exhaustive, as was held by the Rajasthan High Court. All that the petitioners are entitled to is that their objections should be considered, but as was held in the Madras case cited above the most important consideration would be the interest of public generally and if the Regional Transport Authority comes to the conclusion that in the interest of public generally the permits Nos. 3 and 4 should be granted then there would be nothing illegal in the order of the Regional Transport Authority, even though the interests of the petitioners may to a certain extent be affected. The objections of the petitioners were before the Regional Transport Authority and would have already been considered by it, if permits Nos. 3 and 4 have already been granted. If they have not been granted then the objections of the petitioners will be considered by them at the time when the matter comes up before them. Therefore I find no justification in the petitioners' complaint that they had no opportunity of making a representation on the ground that their rights would be affected by the increase in the number of permits. They cannot also legitimately complaint that they were not heard when the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was going on in connection with the proposal for the increase of the strength on this route. I have already held that it is not the intention of Section 47 (1) (e) that the petitioners should have an opportunity of making a representation at the time when the Regional Transport Authority is considering whether or not to increase the strength of the route. Even the principles of natural justice do not require that a party should have an opportunity of a hearing at every stage in proceeding. It was held in the case of F.N. Roy v. Collector of Customs, (S) AIR 1957 SC 648 (D) that there is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to a personal heaving.