9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (9) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t's applications were for grant of permits over the new routes opened for the first time. The applications were notified by the Regional Transport Authority under s. 57(3) of the Act. The appellant and the other applicants filed objections and representations against each other's applications. The Regional Transport Authority, after considering the applications and objections and hearing the parties, passed order granting the permits in favour of the appellant, in respect of all the routes. The order in respect of route (a) was passed on May 18, 1965, for routes (b) and (c) on August 19, 1965, for route (d) on October 9, 1965 and for route (e) on October 30, 1965. Respondents 1 to 5 filed appeals before the Appellate Committee of the Transport Authority of Maharashtra, challenging the grant of permits in favour of the appellant and rejecting their respective applications. Their appeals were Nos. 64, 82. 84, 106 and 114, all of 1965. Respondents 8 to 16 do not seem to have filed any appeals. All the appeals were heard and disposed of by the Appellate Committee by a common order, dated June 9, 1966. Before the Appellate Committee respondents 1 to 5 raised a contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articulars had been furnished in its application and that even in respect of all matters on which further information was called for, it had already been furnished and that the authorities had jurisdiction to call for any additional information that may be neces sary for a proper consideration and disposal of the applications filed by the parties, the High Court, in the order under attack, has taken the view that there has been no proper compliance, by the State Corporation, with regard to the matters dealt. with, particularly in columns 10, 14 and 15 of the prescribed form, viz., the application for permit. The High Court is of the view 3 2 3 that the information furnished by the appellant, under those headings, cannot be considered to be either sufficient or adequate. The High Court has taken the view that withholding of information on vital points, constitutes a defect in the application of the appellant and that creates considerable difficulty to the authorities in considering the claim for grant of a permit. It is also of the view that the Act does not, either expressly or impliedly, give power to either the Regional Transport Authority or the Appellate Committee to give an op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not greater than those under Art. 226 and must be limited to seeing that the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority (Vide: Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills Divn. & Appeals Assam((1958) S.C.R. 1240.). In this case, as we have already pointed out, the High Court has taken the view that the application filed by the appellant, for lack of the necessary particulars provided in the form prescribed, cannot be considered to be an application under the Act and in respect of such an application, the authorities have no jurisdiction to deal with. It is really the correctness of this view expressed by the High Court that arises for consideration. Since the impugned order of the Appellate Committee was challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it is not possible to hold that the High Court could not have entertained the writ petition. Mr. B.R.L. Iyengar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, has urged that in order that an application filed by a party may be considered by the authorities charged with the duty of granting permits, the essential condition precedent is that the application must conform to the requirements of the statute-in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application for permits, in the circumstances stated therein. is to be made. Section 46 provides that an application for a permit shall 'as far as may be, contain' the particulars mentioned in clauses (a) to (f). Clauses (a) to (e) deal with certain definite particulars, but cl. (f) refers to 'such other matters as may be prescribed'. Section 2(21) defines the expression 'prescribed' to mean 'prescribed by rules made under the Act.'. Therefore it will be seen that an application for a permit, apart from containing the particulars referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of s. 46, must also contain. under el. (f), such other matters as may be prescribed. We will come to the rule-making power a lit.tie later. Section 47 provides for the various matters to be taken into account by the Regional Transport Authority in considering an application for a stage carriage permit. That section also provides for taking into consideration any representation made by certain other parties referred to therein. Sub-s. (2) gives power to a Regional Transport Authority to refuse to grant a permit if from any time table furnished it appears that the provisions of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) to (x). Item (ii) deals with a permit in respect of a service of stage carriages and the form prescribed is Form P.St.S.A. Sub-r. (2) provides that the application shall be addressed to the Regional Transport Authority or to the Regional Transport Officer, as the case may be and accompanied by the fee prescribed by rule 84. In this case we are concerned with the Form P.St.S.A. It is seen from the judgment of the High Court that a copy of an application filed by the appellant in respect of the route Arni to Manora has been filed and it has been directed to form part of the record of the case. The form P.St.S.A. provides for nearly 22 items in respect of which a party has to fill up particulars. The particulars governed by item 4 may be related to s. 46(a), those of items 5 and 7 to s. 46(b), items 6 and 8 to s. 46(c), item 10 to s. 46(d) and items 11, 12, 14 to s. 46(e). Over and above these particulars, the form provides several other matters on which information has to be given. The ground on which the High Court has regarded the application of the appellant as invalid is that the application did not give full and detailed particulars in respect of item 10, 14 and 15. We will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rule-making power of the State Government. We have already pointed out that rule 80 provides that every application for permit should be in the appropriate form mentioned therein. Therefore s. 46, the relevant rule, and the form prescribed, have to be read together, and so read it follows that an applicant for a permit must comply, at any rate, substantially with the various matters mentioned therein. It must be borne in mind that s. 68 is not controlled by s. 46 of the Act. In fact it specifically enables the St.ate Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Chapter. The Chapter itself, we have mentioned, is entitled 'Control of Transport Vehicles' and if, with a view to carrying into effect the object. of control of transport vehicles, the form requires information on various matters over and above those enumerated in els. (a) to (d) of s. 46, it cannot be stated that the State Government has acted beyond its rule- making powers when prescribing such a form. The form so prescribed, in our opinion, forms an integral part of rule 80 which the State Government is authorised to make, under s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, we are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rule itself, which the State Government is competent to frame. Therefore the contention of Mr. Gupte that in prescribing the form the State Government has exceeded its rule-making power, cannot be accepted. The further question that arises for consideration, is as to whether the view of the High Court that the application of the appellant is defective and suitable to be dismissed inasmuch as columns 10, 14 and 15 in the application form have not been properly filled up, is correct. Here again, we are not inclined to agree with the reasoning of the High Court that under such circumstances the application filed by the appellant cannot., be treated to be an application under the Act. It is needless to state that an application must. furnish full and complete information that is within his knowledge or possession, in his application for the grant of a permit. The scheme of the Act is quite clear, viz. that an applicant must have a proper permit for operating transport services. To obtain that permit, certain formalities and procedure have to be gone through. Apart from the other applicants having an opportunity to make representations or objections to the claim made by a particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o him for lack of information on certain matters. But this is quite a different thing from the power of the authority to reject an application forthwith on the ground that the application is defective. The only provision where such a power to reject summarily is given is under the proviso to s. 57(3). Under this proviso, the Regional Transport Authority, without following the procedure of publishing an application and inviting objections can summarily refuse the application in the circumstances mentioned therein. No doubt it may be asked that if an application lacks information on very vital matters, the whole object of publishing the same and inviting objections could not be achieved because the parties entitled to make objections and representations cannot effectively make the same. But, as we have already pointed out it is really in the interest of the applicant himself to give the information as far as it lies within his power, on all matters. What the High Court has done in this case, was really to reject the application of the appellant summarily, a power which even the Transport Authority does not, in our opinion, have under the Act. Probably the statute did not give power t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
