NAGESWARA RAO Vs. SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent, the operator on the route Manginapudi Revu to Saradanagar applied for a variation of the route so as to touch Koneru centre and RTC Bus stand and come back to Koneru centre and Kotavari tullu and proceed on its original route. The proposal was notified under Section 47, whereupon the petitioners filed objections. After considering the relevant material the RTA dropped the proposal. Whereupon, the 1st respondent filed a revision petition before the State Transport appellate Tribunal in R.P.No. 33/1983. He did not implead any of the objectors before the RTA as respondents to his revision petition. The Tribunal also did not give a notice to the objectors. It allowed the revision and approved the variation sought for. The order of the tribunal is challenged in this writ petition mainly on the ground that the order passed, without notice to the petitioners, who were objectors before the RTA and whose objections were upheld by the RTA i bad. It is submitted that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is violative of the principles of natural justice because the petitioners are affected parties and no order could be passed affecting them without hearing them.

(2.) In Mohd. Ibrahim vs. S.T.A. Tribunal, Madras it was held that the proceedings under section 47 are of an administrative nature and that the RTA is not obliged to hear the operators while taking a decision thereunder . Indeed it was pointed out that neither the right of appeal nor right of revision conferred upon the initiator or objectors, as the case may be against the order of the first authority, has the effect of converting what is an administrative proceeding into a quasi-judicial one. It is true that even an administrative decision has to be arrived at fairly, which may also involve the obligation to hear the affected party, where it is necessary in the interests of justice, but it is necessary to keep in mind the nature of the decision taken under Section 47 while pronouncing upon the contention urged. The decision uader Section 47 is taken by the appropriate authority in public interest and it is an administrative decision. The decision has to be taken on the relevant material and after calling for such reports as the authority thinks necessary. It is true that objections may also be filed by the interested parties, but all that merely constitutes the material upon which the decision is to be arrived at. By merely filing a representation or placing some material before the authority, the objector does not become a party, to any 'lis. Indeed, at this stage, there is no 'lis' and hence there is none who can call himself a party to Mis'. None has a right to be heard. If he has no right to be heard before the First authority, he cannot claim such a right before the appellate/revising authority either. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right to be heard at the stage of section 47. It means, both before the original authority as well as before the Revising appellate authority.

(3.) Of course, if any one seeks to implead himself before the Tribunal it has a discretion to implead him, if it thinks appropriate in the circumstances. Similarly, in a given case it may also be open to the Tribunal to give or direct notice to a particular objector or initiator of a proposal, as the case may be if it thinks such a course is necessary. But, it cannot be said that the decision arrived at by the Tribunal without hearing the objectors is void on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.