Brij Lal Misra v. Regional Transport Authority, Allahabad High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civ. Misc. Writ No. 2771 of 1957

Attorney(S)

S.C. Khare
Standing Counsel

Judges

Jagdish Sahai, J.

Acts

Sec. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended by Act 100 of 1956,
Sec. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners are holders of stage carriage permits for the Kalpi–Kotra route: petitioner no. 1 holds permit no. 408 (valid to October 1958) and petitioner no. 2 holds permit no. 228 (valid to 1960). The route was created in 1950, and initially petitioner no. 2 alone had a permit. Petitioner no. 1 began operating on the route in 1952 when the route's strength was increased by one vehicle.

Certain representations were made seeking recognition of routes and increases in stage carriage strengths generally. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Kanpur, by letter dated 7-10-1955, sought the District Magistrate of Jhansi's views. The petitioners allege that there was no request or representation to increase strength on the Kalpi–Kotra route, yet the Acting District Magistrate of Jalaun (Sri S.P. Arren) replied suggesting an increase for Kalpi–Kotra.

The RTA considered increasing the strength of the Kalpi–Kotra route around May 1957 and passed a resolution increasing the strength by two stage carriages. The RTA invited applications for permits to fill the two new vacancies; these applications were gazetted in the U.P. Gazette on 12 October 1957 with objections invited and a date fixed for consideration (14 November 1957). The petitioners allege they received no prior notice of the RTA's consideration of increasing strength, were not given an opportunity to make representations at the meeting in which the resolution was passed, and that the decision was arbitrary and would harm their interests because there is allegedly insufficient passenger demand on the route (Kotra being a small village of about 2,000–2,500 population).

The petitioners filed the present petition challenging the resolution/increase in strength and the failure to afford them an opportunity to be heard.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (as amended), a Regional Transport Authority is required to give notice to and an opportunity of being heard to persons already providing passenger transport services on a route before increasing the number (strength) of stage carriages on that route.
Whether principles of natural justice require that the petitioners be heard at the stage when the RTA decides to increase route strength (as distinct from the later stage when permits are actually issued), and whether failure to grant such a hearing makes the resolution illegal or beyond jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as presented by Mr. S.C. Khare)

Primary submission: Before increasing the strength on a route the RTA must consider representations of persons already plying stage carriages on that route; failure to give the petitioners an opportunity to be heard renders the resolution increasing strength illegal and without jurisdiction.
Statutory point: Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Section 47(1), requires that "having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-sec. (1)" includes taking into account representations made by existing operators; therefore existing operators are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before strength is increased.
Natural justice point: Even if not compelled by statute, principles of natural justice demand that a party whose rights are likely to be affected should be given an opportunity to show cause prior to a decision affecting those rights; refusal to hear them at the RTA meeting was arbitrary.

State / Respondent Arguments (as recorded)

The counsel appearing for the State admitted there was nothing on record to show that the RTA's intention to increase strength was communicated to the petitioners, but contended that it was not necessary to give such notice before the RTA resolved to increase strength.
Implicitly, the State's position — as recorded by the court — was that the objections of existing operators could and should be considered when applications for the additional permits (gazetted on 12 October 1957) were considered on their merits, in accordance with Section 47(1).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
C.S.S. Motor Service, Tenkasi v. The State of Madras, A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 279	With reference to Sec. 47(1)(c): adequacy of extension of service is to be considered only insofar as it is in the interests of the public; the relevant factor is the public interest, not merely whether existing operators will suffer by competition.	The Court cited this authority to support the proposition that the primary consideration under Sec. 47(1)(c) is public interest; thus even if petitioners' interests suffered, permits could lawfully be granted if the RTA concluded it was in the public interest.
Dholpur Co-operative Transport Multi Purpose Union Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1955 Rajasthan 19	Sec. 47 lays down general conditions to which regard will be paid in granting or refusing a stage carriage permit; these conditions are not necessarily exhaustive in detail.	The Court relied on this authority to support the view that the list of considerations in Sec. 47(1)(a)–(f) is not necessarily exhaustive and that the RTA may properly consider other objections (including the petitioners' objections) when deciding permit applications.
F.N. Roy v. Collector of Customs, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 648	There is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to a personal hearing; procedural fairness does not require a hearing at every intermediate stage.	The Court applied this principle to hold that principles of natural justice do not mandate a hearing for the petitioners at the stage when the RTA merely decided to increase the number on paper; a personal hearing is not required at every stage of the administrative process.
Civil Misc. Writ No. 1782 of 1957 (Nigam, J.)	Interpreted Sec. 47(3) (as amended) to require that before increasing the number of stage carriages on any route the RTA must take into consideration representations of existing operators and thus must give them information/notice of the proposal.	The Court considered this decision but explicitly disagreed with and overruled the interpretation: it held that the phrase "having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-sec. (1)" does not, by grammar and context, include the separate provision to "take into consideration any representations" and therefore Sec. 47(3) does not require prior notice to existing operators at the increase-of-strength stage.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed the petitioners' two principal submissions in sequence.

First, on statutory interpretation the court examined the language of Section 47 as a whole. Section 47(3) permits a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriages "having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-sec. (1)". Section 47(1) lists matters in clauses (a)–(f) and then separately provides that the authority "shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities...". The court focussed on the use of the word "matters" together with the word "namely" in the opening of sub-sec. (1).

The court concluded that the term "matters" (qualified by "namely") relates only to clauses (a)–(f), and does not extend to the subsequently expressed obligation to "take into consideration any representations". The court explained this conclusion on grammatical and textual grounds: construing the opening phrase to include the representations language would render the sentence illogical or meaningless. On this basis the court rejected the view taken by Nigam, J. (Civil Misc. Writ No. 1782 of 1957) that Sec. 47(3) requires prior notice to existing operators before increasing strength.

Second, addressing the petitioners' natural justice argument, the court observed that an increase in the "strength" on paper does not itself immediately affect the proprietary or vested rights of operators; their rights are affected only when permits for additional vehicles are actually issued. Section 47(1) requires the RTA, when considering an application for a permit, to have regard to clauses (a)–(f) and to take into consideration representations by existing operators. In the present case the applications for the two additional permits were gazetted on 12 October 1957 and objections were invited; therefore the petitioners had a statutory opportunity to object and have their objections considered when the RTA considered the permit applications on merits.

The court further explained that Sec. 47(1)(c) obliges the RTA to consider the adequacy of other passenger services "in considering an application." Citing C.S.S. Motor Service (Madras) the court emphasised that adequacy must be judged with reference to the public interest, not merely on whether existing operators will suffer by competition. Relying on Dholpur Co-operative Transport, the court noted that the statutory list in Sec. 47(1)(a)–(f) is not necessarily exhaustive; thus the RTA may consider petitioners' objections under the general scheme of Sec. 47(1) when considering permit applications.

Finally, the court reiterated the principle from F.N. Roy that there is no general rule of natural justice entitling a party to a personal hearing at every stage; administrative or procedural steps do not each attract a right to an oral hearing. Combining the statutory reading and the natural justice principle, the court found no illegality in the RTA's resolution increasing the route's strength without affording a hearing at that preliminary stage, provided the petitioners' objections are considered when the actual permit applications are determined.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The petition is dismissed with costs. The court held that Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, by necessary implication, require that persons already providing passenger transport facilities be given notice and an opportunity of hearing at the stage when the RTA resolves to increase the number (strength) of stage carriages on a route.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the petitioners' challenge to the RTA's resolution increasing the strength is unsuccessful and the petition is dismissed with costs.
The court clarified that existing operators' objections are to be considered when the RTA deals with the actual applications for permits (the stage at which permits are granted or refused) in accordance with Sec. 47(1)(a)–(f) and the obligation to take into consideration representations; the RTA must consider factors such as adequacy of services and public interest when deciding those applications.
The court rejected the argument that principles of natural justice required a hearing at the preliminary stage of resolution to increase strength, reaffirming that there is no absolute right to a personal hearing at every stage of an administrative process.

This summary is confined to the material contained in the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

Brij Lal Misra v. Regional Transport Authority

Sahai, J.:— The petitioner no. 1 holds a permit—being permit no. 408 for plying a stage carriage on Kalpi-Kotra route. This permit is valid upto October 1958. The petitioner no. 2 also holds a permit being permit no. 228 for plying a stage carriage on the same route. This permit is valid upto 1960. The petitioners allegation is that this route was created in 1950 and originally the petitioner no. 2 alone was granted a permit for running the stage carriage on this route. The petitioner No. 1 however began plying his stage carriage on the route from 1952 when the strength was increased by one more vehicle on this route. Certain representations were made for recognizing certain routes and for increasing the strength of stage carriages on certain routes. Because of those representations the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, by his letter no. 1388 RTA/80.Strength dated 7-10-1955, wrote to the District Magistrate of Jhansi for his views on the matter. It is alleged that in none of those representations was there any suggestion that the strength on Kalpi-Kotra route be increased, nor was the opinion of the District Magistrate invited for the increase of the strength on this route. Yet the Acting District Magistrate of Jalaun Sri S.P Arren, it is alleged, sent a letter in reply to the aforesaid letter of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, suggesting that the strength on Kalpi Kotra route be increased. The matter of the increase of strength on Kalpi Kotra route was put up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority sometime in May 1957. The petitioners' case is that they did not receive any notice nor had they any opportunity to make representations against the increase in the strength on the route. The petitioners on coming to know that the aforesaid agenda was fixed for consideration in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority reached the place where the meeting was being held and sent a slip that they wanted to make certain representations against the proposed increase in the strength on the Kalpi-Kotra route, but, the petitioner's allegation is that, they were neither called in the meeting nor were allowed any opportunity to make re-presentations against the increase in the strength. The Regional Transport Authority passed a resolution in this meeting that the strength on the Kalpi-Kotra route be increased by two more stage carriages and in pursuance of that resolution applications were invited from different persons for grant of permits for the two more stage carriages on the Kalpi-Kotra route. These applications have now been gazetted in the U.P Gazette of 12th October, 1957 for receiving objections. The petitioners allege that they have sent a representation that the strength should not be increased and that 14th November, 1957 was fixed for the consideration of the applications made for grant of permits on the two vacancies created by them. It is alleged that there was no demand of the public or any authority for increase of the strength on the Kalpi-Kotra route and there are not even sufficient passengers for the two stage carriages already plying and any increase would adversely affect the rights of the petitioners. It is alleged that Kotra is a small village with a population of about 2000 to 2500 persons and there is not much traffic on this route. The complaint of the petitioners is that the decision to increase the strength has been made arbitrarily and without considering the point of view of the persons who are already providing transport facilities on this route. On these facts the petitioners have moved this petition.

2. Mr. S.C Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioners has made two submissions. His first submission is that before the strength of the route could be increased it was incumbent upon the Regional Transport Authority to have considered the representation of the petitioners and their failure to give the petitioners an opportunity of making any such representation makes the resolution increasing the strength illegal and without jurisdiction. In this connection it is also complained that the petitioners reached the place where the meeting was held and wanted an opportunity to be heard which was refused arbitrarily and it is complained that the principles of natural justice have also been infringed inasmuch as the strength has been increased without hearing the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that they were entitled to be heard before the resolution increasing the strength was passed for two reasons. Firstly, it is said that Sec. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down that before the strength is increased the persons who are already plying their stage carriages on the route should be given an opportunity of being heard; Sec. 47(3) runs as follows:—

“A Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-sec. (1), limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region.”

3. It is contended that the words “having regard to matters mentioned in sub-sec. (1)” include the taking into consideration of any representation made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area. It would be noticed that in Sec. 47(1) it is provided that “a Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters namely:—

(a) the interests of the public generally.

(b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to be affected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken;

(c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future whether by road or other means, between the places to be served;

(d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service;

(e) the operation by the applicant of other transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending;

(f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area;

and shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area, or by any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf by the State Government, or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies;

Provided that other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit from a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment in force for the time being shall, as far as may be, be given preference over applications from individual owners.”

4. It is contended that the words “having regard to matters mentioned in sub-section (1)” means having regard not only to the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) but also any representation made by any person already providing passenger transport facilities. It is therefore argued that inasmuch as Sec. 47(3) of the Act contemplates the taking into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities, by implication it has been enacted that the persons who are already providing passenger transport facilities shall be given a notice and shall be allowed an opportunity to make a representation before the Regional Transport Authority limits the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which the stage carriage permits may be granted. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to a decision of my learned Brother Nigam, J. in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1782 of 1957, where a similar question arose for consideration. The learned Judge has observed as follows:—

“The contention of the learned counsel is that Sec. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended by Act 100 of 1956, requires the Regional Transport Authority before increasing the number of stage carriages on any route to take into consideration any representation made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area or by any association, representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities. The contention of the learned counsel is that as this representation had to be considered before a decision could be arrived at altering the number of stage carriages operating on that route, it was necessary and incumbent on the Regional Transport Authority to give information of the proposal under its consideration to the persons operating on or near the route. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the decision increasing the number of stage carriages was arrived at on 25-1-1957 and there is nothing on the record to show that this intention was communicated to the petitioner who is admittedly a person interested in providing passenger transport facilities on the route. The learned counsel urges that it was not necessary to give any such notice. Sub-sec. (3) clearly requires that the Transport Authority has to pay regard to the matters mentioned in sub-sec. (1) and these include consideration of representation to be made by persons interested in providing passenger transport facilities. Once this is conceded, it follows that some process of informing the persons so interested must be gone through otherwise it would always be open to the Regional Transport Authority to avoid receiving any representation by following a policy of hush hush.”

5. With the greatest respect I am unable to agree with the learned Judge. The words “having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-sec. (1)”, to my mind, do not include consideration of representation to be made by persons interested in providing passenger transport facilities. I am saying so because it will be seen that in Sec. 47(1) of the Act the word “matters” has been used only in relation to what is mentioned in clauses (a) to (f). The opening words of Sec. 47(1) are as follows:—

“A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely:—

………………………”

6. The use of the word ‘namely’ after the word ‘matters’ conclusively proves that the matters contemplated are those mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) and nothing more. It cannot be said that the words ‘matters’ and ‘namely’ also relate to the words “and shall also take into consideration any representation made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities.” To my mind such a construction would be opposed to the rules of grammer because then the sentence would read as follows:—

7. A Regional Transport Authority shall in considering an application for a stage carriage permit have regard to the following matters namely and shall take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities.

8. If the sentence were to read like that it would make no meaning. I am, therefore, unable to hold that the expression “having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-sec. (1)” includes consideration of representations to be made by persons interested in providing passenger transport facilities. I, therefore, overrule this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. As a second string to his bow Mr. Khare has submitted that even if his arguments with respects to Sec. 47(3) of the Act be not accepted the principles of natural justice require that a party should be given an opportunity of showing cause against a decision which is likely to affect his right. More increase of the strength on the route on paper would not affect the right of the persons who are already plying their stage carriages from before. Their rights would be affected only if and when permits for the additional or the increased number of vehicles are given. Sec. 47(1) of the Act requires that before such permits are given the Regional Transport Authority shall take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities. In fact according to the allegations of the petitioners themselves the applications for additional permits have been gazetted in the U.P Gazette of 12th October, 1957 and objections have been invited from all persons whose rights are being affected including the petitioners. The petitioners can and in fact have objected to the issue of the permits. Their objections that there are not sufficient passeners even for the two stage carriages already plying and therefore a further increase is not desirable can be and shall be considered by the Regional Transport Authority at the time when they will be considering whether or not to issue the additional permits to the applicants for the same. Sec. 47(1)(c) provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall in considering an application for a stage carriage permit have regard to the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be served. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the Regional Transport Authority has already decided that the strength should be increased by two, the only thing that they will now consider is as to whom the permits for the same be issued. I do not agree with this contention. The language of Sec. 47(1)(c) is very clear and even at the time when the Regional Transport Authority is considering the applications which are gazetted, on merits they are also required to consider the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in near future. The Regional Transport Authority has to consider all the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of Sec. 47(1) of the Act. They will also consider the petitioners' objection that there was no scope for the increase of permits on the Kalpi-Kotra route, along with other matters mentioned in Sec. 47(1) from (a) to (f). It will be for the Regional Transport Authority to decide as to what weight should be given to this objection. It was held in the case of C.S.S Motor Service, Tenkasi v. The State of Madras A.I.R 1953 Mad. 279. that with reference to Sec. 47(1)(c) adequacy of extension of service can be taken into account only in so far as it is in the interests of the public. The factor to be considered is not whether the existing operators will suffer by competition but whether extension of service will be in the interests of the public. It was held in the case of Dholpur Co-operative Transport Multi Purpose Union Ltd. v. Appellate Authority Rajasthan A.I.R 1955, Rajasthan 19. that Sec. 47 lays down the general conditions regard will be paid to which in granting or refusing a stage carriage permit. These conditions are not necessarily exhaustive in details. That being so even if it be conceded for a moment, though I have held to the contrary that Sec. 47(1)(c) does not cover such objections as the petitioners have the Regional Transport Authority can consider the petitioners objection on the ground that the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of Sec. 47(1) are not exhaustive as was held by the Rajasthan High Court. All that the petitioners are entitled to is that their objections should be considered, but as was held in the Madras cited above the most important consideration would be the interest of public generally and if the Regional Transport Authority comes to the conclusion that in the interest of public generally the permits nos. 3 and 4 should be granted then there would be nothing illegal in the order of the Regional Transport Authority, even though the interests of the petitioners may to a certain extent be affected. The objections of the petitioners were before the Regional Transport Authority and would have already been considered by it, if permits nos. 3 and 4 have already been granted. If they have not been granted then the objections of the petitioners will be considered by them at the time when the matter comes up before them. Therefore I find no justification in the petitioners complaint that they had no opportunity of making a representation on the ground that their rights would be affected by the increase in the number of permits. They cannot also legitimately complain that they were not heard when the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was going on in connection with the proposal for the increase of the strength on this route. I have already held that it is not the intention of Sec. 47(1)(c) that the petitioners should have an opportunity of making a representation at the time when the Regional Transport Authority is considering whether or not to increase the strength on the route. Even the principles of natural justice do not require that a party should have an opportunity of a hearing at every stage in proceeding. It was held in the case of F.N Roy v. Collector of Customs A.I.R 1953 S.C 648. that there is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to a personal hearing. I, therefore, see no force in this petition and dismiss it with costs.

10. Petition dismissed.

Brij Lal Misra v. Regional Transport Authority

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as presented by Mr. S.C. Khare)

State / Respondent Arguments (as recorded)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Brij Lal Misra v. Regional Transport Authority

Comments