PETITIONER:
IKRAM KHAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT31/08/1976
BENCH:
GOSWAMI, P.K.
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
CITATION:
1976 AIR 2333 1977 SCR (1) 459
1976 SCC (4) 1
ACT
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Sec. 47--Rajasthan Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1951 Rule 108(c)--Whether considerations in
Sec. 47 for grant of stage permits to be mentioned in the
order.
HEADNOTE
The appellant and respondents No. 3 and 4 applied for
the grant of nontemporary stage carriage permits. The
Regional Transport Authority granted the permits to the
appellant and respondent No. 4 and rejected the application
of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal to
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The notice of
appeal was served upon the appellant where the date and time
were mentioned but the place was not mentioned. Since the
appellant did not appear the appeal was heard ex-parte. The
Tribunal set aside the order of the Transport Authority and
granted the permit in favour of respondent No. 3. A writ
petition filed by the appellant against the order of the
Tribunal was dismissed summarily by the learned Single Judge
by a long speaking order. A Division Bench dismissed the
appeal filed by the appellant.
In an appeal by Special Leave the appellant contended:
1. The notice as required by rule 108(c) of the
Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 served on the
appellant was not proper notice since it did not
mention the place of the hearing of the appeal.
2. The Tribunal did not consider the relevant
matters as mentioned in section 47(a) to (f).
HELD: 1. The omission to mention the place is not fatal.
The appellant is a resident of Jaipur where also the office
of the Tribunal is situated. He was a Stage Carriage permit
holder and not a stranger to the Transport authorities. In
fact, hearing of the appeal was adjourned twice even after
the date mentioned in the notice. [460 F]
2. The Regional Transport Authority did not make any
reference to the relevant considerations under section 47
of the Act. The Tribunal on the other hand has considered
various aspects of the matter as required by section 47
although without a reference to that section. The Tribunal
and the learned Single Judge duly considered the whole
matter and the Division Bench was justified in summarily
rejecting the special appeal. [461 B--D]
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 874 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 5-3-75 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil
Appeal No. 18 of 1975.
M.C. Bhandare, S.M. Jain, S.K. Jain and Mohd. Fasiuddin,
for the Appellant.
P.C. Bhartari, for Respondent No. 3.
K.J. John, for Respondent No. 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI, J.--The appellant and the respondents 3 and 4
were the former existing stage-carriage operators of
Jaipur-Sainthal route which was nationalised on January 25,
1973. All of them applied for the grant of non-temporary
stage carriage permits of Jaipur-Padampura route as alterna-
tive route permits. The Regional Transport Authority,
Jaipur (briefly the RTA) by it’s order of July 22, 1974,
granted nontemporary permits to the appellant and respondent
No. 4 and rejected the application of respondent No. 3.
That led to an appeal to the State Transport AppeLlate
Tribunal at Jaipur, Rajasthan, by respondent
460
No. 3. The notice of appeal was served upon the appellant
but since he did not appear the appeal was heard ex-parte
and by its order dated December 17, 1974, the State Trans-
port Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the RTA and
granted the permit in favour of respondent No. 3. The
appellant filed a writ application under Article 226 of the
Constitution before the Rajasthan High Court and the learned
single Judge by a rather long speaking order dismissed the
same summarily. A further appeal by the appellant to the
Division Bench met with the same fate. The High Court also
refused to grant certificate to appeal to this Court. Hence
this appeal by special leave.
Mr. Bhandare, the learned counsel on behalf of the
appellant, submits that the order of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal (briefly the Tribunal) is invalid inas-
much as the appeal was heard in the absence of a proper
notice of appeal as required under the law. He draws our
attention to rule 108(c) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles
Rules. 1951, which reads as follows :---
"Upon receipt of an appeal preferred in
accordance with sub-rule (b) the Appellate Tribunal
may appoint a date, time and place for hearing of
the Appeal, giving the State Transport Authority,
or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case
may be, and the appellant. not less than thirty
days notice thereof".
Although the above rule does not contain any provision for
service of notice on the respondent, it is, however, implic-
it that a notice similar to one intended under the rule
for service on the appellant must also be served on the
respondent. Mr. Bhandare could not dispute the factual
service of notice on the appellant in view of the Tribunal’s
finding. He however, submits that the notice which was
served on the appellant did not recite the place for the
hearing of the appeal although the date and time were noted
therein. It is true that the Tribunal could not, in law,
hear the appeal without intimating the respondent. about the
date, time and place for hearing of the appeal but since the
appellant had received the notice from the Tribunal indicat-
ing the date and time for hearing of the appeal, the omis-
sion in the notice to describe the place where the appeal is
to be heard is not fatal enough to make the appeal proceed-
ing invalid before the Tribunal. The appellant, admittedly,
is a resident of Jaipur where also the office of the Tribu-
nal is situated. He was also a stage carriage permit-holder
and not a stranger to the office of the Transport Authori-
ties. Besides, although the notice of the appeal fixed the
date of hearing on October 8, 1974, the appeal was adjourned
on that day to October 21, 1974 and again to November 12,
1974 and it was only on December 12, 1974 that the final
hearing of the appeal took place. It is, therefore, clear
that the appellant was duly notified about the hearing of
the appeal and in view of the fact that he did not make any
effort to be present during this entire period, when the
appeal was pending, he could not be allowed to take advan-
tage of the mere omission of the place of hearing of the
appeal in the notice. Besides, the RTA was present as
provided for under section 64(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 (briefly the Act) before the Tribunal to defend its own
order. The submission of the appellant is, therefore, of no
avail.
461
Mr. Bhandare next submits that the Tribunal failed to
comply with section 47 of the Act and did not at all consid-
er the relevant matters (a) to (f) provided therein. It is
well settled that in considering an application for a stage
carriage permit the RTA shall have regard to the matters
described in section 47. Before we go to consider about the
submission of the learned counsel with reference to the
order of the Tribunal it is manifest, on the face of the
order of the RTA, that Authority, even at the first in-
stance, did not make any reference to the relevant consider-
ations under section 47 of the Act. The only reason given
by the RTA in rejecting the application of respondent No. 3
is that "there is no other vacancy". There is nothing to
show that the case of respondent No. 3 was at all considered
by the RTA on merits. The Tribunal, on the other hand, has
considered various aspects of the matter although without a
reference to section 47 as such. For example, the condition
of the vehicles of the two parties was duly considered by
the Tribunal. The fact that the respondent 3 had a later
model of vehicle being 1965 model whereas the appellant had
only a 1962 model vehicle tilted the balance in favour of
the respondent No. 3. This aspect can well arise under
clauses (a) and (b) of section 47. We are unable to say that
the relevant considerations under section 47, on the facts
and circumstances of the grant of the particular permit,
were not kept in view by the Tribunal in considering the
appeal. The Tribunal and the learned single Judge duly
considered the whole matter and the Division Bench was
justified in summarily rejecting the special appeal. The
second submission of the learned counsel also fails.
In the result the appeal is dismissed but we will make
no order as to costs.
P.H.P. Appeal dismissed.
462