NAIB TRANSPORT PRIVATE LTD Vs. S N MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant company owned two buses which in the year 1954 were plying for hire on Route No. 33 in Calcutta on the strength of a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In that year the State Transport Directorate started putting their own buses on Route No. 33 and in an attempt to induce the owners of buses, who had already valid licence for operation on that route, agreed that if any such owners would withdraw their buses from Route No. 33, they could go over to Route No. 12C from which the State Transport Directorate would withdraw their buses. Some owners of buses operating on Route No. 33 accepted the offer and transferred their operations to "Route No. 12C. This appellant, however, refused to transfer its buses to Route No. 12C. Its position was that the permits for its two buses were valid till 9-11-1956, and it preferred to continue its operation on Route No. 33 on the strength of those permits. On 27-8-1956, however, the appellant made an application to the Regional Transport Authority for permits on Route No. 12C for its two buses. Though the word 'renew' was used in this application, the Authority rightly treated this as a fresh application for permits for Route No. 12C. The application was rejected by an order dated 26-12-1956. The reasons for the refusal are given in these words: "I have carefully considered the view points of Messrs. Naib Transport (Private) Ltd., as well as the representation of the State Transport Directorate in the light of Section 47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. I am satisfied that the existing road passenger transport services between Barisha and Howrah Station are quite adequate and in view of my observations recorded in the earlier order I refuse to grant stage carriage permits in favour of Messrs. Naib Transport (Private) Ltd. authorising them to ply their two buses Nos. WBS-781 and WBS-759 on route 12C of Calcutta." An appeal was preferred by the company to the Appellate Sub-Committee of the State Transport Authority, but that appeal was dismissed. Thereupon, the company applied to this Court for appropriate writs under Article 226 of the Constitution for getting the order of refusal quashed.

(2.) The main grounds on which the company bases its claim for relief are first, that in making the order of refusal, the Regional Transport Authority as well as the Appellate Authority took into consideration extraneous matters, such as the policy of the Government of West Bengal regarding nationalisation of all the city routes including Route No. 12C and the congestion of the bus stand at the Howrah station and, secondly, that the authorities failed to take into consideration matters which were incumbent upon them to consider. A Rule nisi was issued, but at the final hearing the Rule nisi was discharged and the application for relief under Article 226 was rejected, the trial judge being of opinion that neither of the two matters, namely the policy of the Government to nationalise Route No. 12C and the congestion of the bus stand at Howrah, was extraneous consideration.

(3.) Though an attempt was first made by Mr. Meyer, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, to repeat his contention that the question of congestion of the bus stand at Howrah was extraneous, he conceded after some discussion that this fell directly within Clause (a) of Section 47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act which mentions the matters to which a Regional Transport Authority "shall, in deciding whether to grant or refuse a stage carriage permit, have regard." Clause (a) mentions the interest of the public generally and it appears to me clear that the congestion of the bus stand is a very important matter affecting the interest of the travelling public as well as other sections of the public. This matter cannot, therefore, be possibly considered to be extraneous. As, however, Mr. Meyer has conceded that this is not extraneous and does fall within Clause (a), further discussion of this aspect is not necessary.