Holding

The Supreme Court held that the absence of a fresh notification by a properly constituted Regional Transport Authority does not invalidate the consideration of applications filed under an earlier notification, and that no failure of justice occurred, so the appellate order stands.

Summary

The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) initially issued a notification under s.57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to invite applications for stage‑carriage permits, but the RTA was later found to be improperly constituted for lacking a non‑official member as required by s.44. After being reconstituted, the RTA did not issue a fresh notification but considered the applications already received and granted a permit to the appellant. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside that grant and awarded the permit to another respondent. The appellant challenged the validity of the proceedings on the ground that the earlier invalid RTA’s delegation to its Secretary made the later process void, and also contested the reduction of his marks and reliance on a solitary adverse entry. The Supreme Court held that applications under s.57(2) may be filed voluntarily without a fresh notification, that the failure to issue a new notification by a properly constituted RTA does not invalidate the consideration of earlier applications, and that no failure of justice occurred; consequently, it declined to interfere on merits. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a notification under s.57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 must be issued by a properly constituted Regional Transport Authority before applications can be considered.
Whether the delegation of power by an improperly constituted RTA to its Secretary to issue such a notification renders subsequent proceedings invalid.
Whether the non‑issuance of a fresh notification by a properly constituted RTA is a ground to set aside a stage‑carriage permit order.
Whether the appellate authority may reduce the marks awarded to an applicant and rely on a solitary adverse entry in rejecting the application.
Whether the High Court may interfere on merits of the permit application under Art.226 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 134, s. 44, s. 47(3), s. 57(2), s. 57(3)

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actstage carriage permitRegional Transport Authoritynotificationprocedural irregularityappellate jurisdictionArticle 226failure of justicemarks reduction

Judgment

A
R. SRIHARI NAIDU

v.
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

B February 6, 1985

(V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND V. KHALID, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 57 (2)-Permlts granted by Regional Transparl
Authiirity invalidated on the ground of improper constitution of the RTA-:-RTA
c reconstituted-No Notification Issued for Inviting fresh applications-Grant of
permits on the basis of applications recefved in pursuance of the tarli1r N1tificatfon
-Whether in.a/id.
•
An order granting two •tage carriage permits by the Regional Tran1p0rt
Authority was set aside in appeal on the ground thattho R TA had not been
properly constituted. Thereafter. the Regional Transport Authority, on its pro-
D per constitution, did not issue a fresh Notification u/s. 57 (2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 inviting fresh applications but granted a stage carriage per-
mit to the appellant on the basis of applications received in pursuance of the
earlier Notification. On appeal by the aggrieved applicants the Appellate
Authority set aside the said order and instead granted the permit to re1pondent
No. 4. The appellant's revision application before the State Government having •
been failed, he filed a writ petition in the High Court against the order of the
E
State Government on the grounds, (i) that at the time when the earlier Noti-
fication was issued u/s. 57(2), the delegation of power by the invalidly consti·
tuted Authority to its Secretary to issue such Notification would be invalid and
therefore the further proceedings adopted for consideration of such applications
and graot of permits pursuant to such consideration was invalid; and (ii) that on
F merits the Appellate Authority ought not to have interfered with the five marks
that had been granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority and
reduced tbe same to three and further !that the Appellate Authority ought not
to have-relied upon the only solitary adverse entry in the appe11ant's record to
reject bis application while preferring that of respondent No. 4. The High Cotirt '
also dismissed the writ petition. The appellant advanced the same contentions
before the Supreme Court,
G
Dismi11ing the appeal,

HELD : (I) The first contention is liable to ht rejected en three &rounds,
namely, (i) It was not dioputed that applications under •· 57 (2) of the Act for y
the grant or stage carriage permits could be filed voluntarily and without any
Notification being issued in that behalf. IC that be so, the question whether a
ff fresh Notification invitini fresh appli~ations by the properly constituted Re~ional
11.s. NAIDU v. GOVT. OF A.P. (Tulzapurkar, J.) 805
Transport Authority ought to have been issued or not or whether the properly A
.. constituted Regional Transport Authority could proceed to act on the earlier
Notification issued by the Secretary would be immaterial and· of no consequence
and the ultimate decision not to grant stage carriage permit to the appellant
• cannot be disturbed on this ground; (ii) The non-issuance .of a fresh Notification
by the properly constituted Regional Transport Authority could, if at all, be
made a ground of attack by those persons who were vnable to make ·applications
because of such non-issuance and not by the appellant who had made an appli- 8
.... cation in that behalf and who took his chance to obtain the permit on the basi·s
of his application which was in fact considered by the Regional Transport Autho-
rity and thereafter by the Appellare Authority; and (iii) The initial order granting
the permit to tbt appellant was passed by a properly constituted Regional Trans-
port Authority and the appellate order was also passed by State Transport
Appellate Tribunal which was the properly constituted Appellate Authority and
both these authorities had passed their orders on a consideration or the entire c
material placed before each of them and after giving a fuJI hearing to the appeJlt1nt
and as auch no failure of justice had occassioned. [807C·F; H; 808AJ

"' (2) This Court will not be justified in interfering in tho matter on merits,
since the High Court bas rightly taken ihe view, (i) that the second contention
really pertained to tho merits of the claim of the appellant to the stage carriage
permit and it could not interfere with the finding of fact recorded against the
D
appellant in that behalf In exercise of its extra·ordinary jurisdiQtion under Art.
226 of the Constitution; and (ii) that the grounds on which Ille marks of the
appellant were reduced and the reasons for ultimate rejection of the appellant's
applicarion were justified. [808C·D]

"' CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 874 of 1971 E
•
On appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 25-2-71 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 975/1969.

M. K. Ramamurthy and J. Ramamurthy for the Appellant.
F
T. V. S. N. Chari, B. Parthasarthy, A. S. Nambiar, Attar Singh
~
and G. N. Rao fo1 the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

TULZAPURKAR, J. In April 1960 the Regional Transport Autho- G
. I' I
rity, Chittoor, acting under s. 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
decided to open a n~w long distance route called Tada to Tada (ring

. ~
route) and fixed the number of vehicles for which stage carriage
permits would be issued at tV10 on that route. In August 1960 a
No!ification was published under s. 57 (2) of the Act inviting appli-
cations for the grant of two such stage carriage permits. Several
applieations received in pursuance of sqc4 Notifiyatioq were qotiqell Ii
806 S9PllJOO! COURT REPORTS (1985) 2 s.c.a .

.A under s. 57 (3) on 18th October, 1960 for submission of representa-
tions in connection therewith. Two permits-one to K. Ramachandra
naidu and the other to M/s Associated Transports (Madras) Private
Limited, were granted by the Regional Transport Authority in •
NovembeP 1960, The unsuccessful applicants filed appeals to the
Appellate Authority (STAT) who set aside the order granting the
8
two permits on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority
itself had not been properly constituted inasmuch as it did not
comprise a non-official member as required by s. 44 of the Act and
the matter was remanded. Thereafter the Regional Transport Autho-
rity was properly constituted by including within it a non-official
c member. However, after it was so properly constituted the Regional
Transport Authority did not issued a fresh Notification under s. 57
(2) inviting fresh applications but proceeded to consider the several
applications that had been received in pursuance of the earlier
Notification issued under s. 57 (2) and after re-affirming the neces·
sity for the grant of two permits only on that route granted two stage
D carriage permits one to the appellant (R. Srihari Naidu) and the
other to respondent No. 5 (M/s Navyandhra Labour Transport). In
app~als preferred by the aggrieved applicants the Appellate Autho·
rity (STAT) confirmed the grant of the stage carriage permit to
respondent No. 5 but set aside the permit granted to the appellant
and instead granted it to respondent No.4 <V. Janakirami Reddy).
E The appellant went in revision to the State Government against the
order of the Appellate Authority but the same was rejected by the •
State Government; in other words the grant of the permit to respon-
dent No. 4 in place of the appellant was confirmed. The appellant
moved the High Court by means of a writ petition under Art. 226
of the Consitution and challenged the otder of the State Government
F passed in rovision on 18th March, 1969.

Two grounds were urged in support of the Writ Petition: (a)
that after the Regional Transport Authority had been properly
constituted no Notification inviting fresh applications was issued by
that Authority but the authority only con~idered those applications
which had been received by the Secretary of the earlier Body-the
G Regional Transport Authority invalidly constituted in breach of s.
44 under the authority that had been delegated by that body to the
Secretary the contention being that at the time when such earlier Notifica·
tion was issued under s.57(2) the delegation of power by such invalidly
i constituted Authority to its Secretary to issue such Notification
' would be invalid and therefore, the further proceedings adopted for
consideration of such applications and grant of permits pursu<l.nt to
k.s. NAIDU v. GOVT. OJI' A.P. (Tulzapurkar, J.) 807

... such consideration was invalid, and (b) that on merits the Appellate A
Authority ought not to have interfered with the five marks that had
been granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority
and reduced the same to three and further that the Appellate
Authority ought not to have relied uoon the only solitary adverse
entry in the appellant's record to reject his application while prefer- B
ing that of re;.pondent No. 4. The High Court rejected both the
contentions and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is this decision of
the High Court that has been challenged by the appellant before us
in this appeal.
In support of the appeal counsel for the appellant pressed be- c
fore us the self-same two contentions that were urged before the
High Court. In our view the first contention is liable to be rejected
on three grounds. In the first place it was not disputed that applica-
tions under s. 57 <2) of the Act for the grant of stage carriage permits
could be filed voluntarily and without any Notification being issued
in that behalf If that be so the question whether a fresh Notification D
inviting fresh applications by the properly constituted Regional
Transport Authority ought to have been issued or not or whether
the properly constituted Regional Transport Authority could proceed
to act on the earlier Notification issued by the Secretary would be
immaterial and of no consequence and the ultimate decision not to grant
stage carriage permit to the appellant cannot be disturbed on this
• E
ground. Secondly in our view the non-issuance of a fresh Notification
by the properly constituted Regional Transport Authority could, if
at ail, be made a ground of attack by those persons who were unable
to make applications because of such non-issuance and not by the
appellant who had made an application in that behalf and who took
his chance to obtain the permit on the basis of his application F
which was in fact considered by the Regional Transport Authority
and thereafter by the Appellate Authority. ThadJy sub·s.(2) of s. 134
of the Act provides :

"No order made by a competent authority under this
Act shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on G
account of any error, omission or irregularity in the pro·
ceedings, unless it appears to the prescribed appellate autho-
rity or rev1sional authority, as the case may be that such
error omission or irregularity has, in fact, occasioned a
failure of justice.''

If was not disputed that the initial order granting the permit to the
appellant was passed by a properly constituted Regional Transport H
808 SuPltl!MB'·GouRT lll!PORTs il98SJ ~ s.c.lt
A Authority and the appellate order was also passed by State Transport
Appellate Tribunal which was the properly consituted Appellate
Authority and both these Authorities had passed their orders on a
consideration of the entire material placed before each of them and
after giving a full hearing to the appellant and as such no failure of
justice had occassioned; therefore, in our view the error or omission
B
that is said to have taken place in the instant case [of there being no
proper Notification issued inviting applications for permits under
s.57 (2)) can not be made a ground to upset the final order that has
been passed in the case. On these grounds the first contention must
be rejected.
c
As regards the second contention it must be observed that the
High Court has taken the view that the contention really pertained
to the merits of the claim of the stage carriage permit and it could
not interfere with the finding of fact recorded against the appellant
in that behalf in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under
D Art. 226 .of the. Constitution and alternatively the High Court has
also taken the view that the grounds on which the marks of the
appellant were reduced and the reasons for ultimate rejection of the
appellant's application were justified. Having regard to this view of
the High Court we do not feel that we should interfere in the matter
on merits.
E
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

M.l. A. Appeal dismissed.