RAJMAL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Full Bench has been constituted to consider the following question referred to it by the Division Bench: "Whether the provisions of Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are attracted while dealing with an application for grant of extension of a permit, which is required to be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit, by virtue of the provisions of Section 57(8) of the Act?"

(2.) The material facts which have given rise to the aforesaid question briefly stated are as follows : The petitioner who is a passenger transport operator holds a stage carriage permit which is valid up to 4th June, 1982, for the route Jobat-Meghnagar, covering a distance of 72 kms. On 6th Mar., 1978 the petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) Indore for extension of his permit up to Petalawad beyond Meghnagar -- the proposed extension covering a distance of 52 k. ms. The application submitted by the petitioner was published as required by Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and after hearing the representations, the R. T. A. by its order dated 9-1-1980 granted the extension applied for by the petitioner. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed revisions against the order of the R. T. A. before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). These revisions along with a number of other similar revisions involving the question of legality of the orders passed by the R. T. A. granting extension of permits in such cases came up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the revisions and remanded the case to the R. T. A. to first examine the question as to whether any order under Section 47 (3) of the Act was passed by the R. T. A. limiting the number of stage carriages and in case such a limit was fixed, then io further examine the question as to whether the extension prayed for could be granted by the R. T. A. in view of the limit so fixed. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) This petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. Before the Division Bench the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench decisions of this Court in M. P. S. R. T. Corpn.,v. S. T. A. Authority, (AIR 1974 Madh Pra 136), Hazarilal v. S. T. A. Authority, (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 220) and the unreported judgment Deewan-chand v. S. T. Authority, Gwalior, (M. P. No. 416 of 1968 -- Jabalpur -- decided on 27-9-1968), in support of the contention that under the provisions of Section 57 (8) of the Act, though an application for extension of a permit was required to be treated as an application fop the grant of a new permit, yet the provisions of Section 47 (3) of the Act were not attracted while considering the question of grant of extension of a permit under the provisions of Section 57(8) of the Act Learned counsel contended that the fiction created by Sub-section (8) of Section 57 of the Act in treating an application to vary the conditions of a permit as an application for grant of a new permit, was for purposes of the procedure provided in Section 57 of the Act and the fiction could not be extended for attracting the provisions of Section 47 (3) of the Act