459
IKRAMKHAN
#### v. A
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
_August_ 31, 1976
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]
_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_ B
_mentioned_ _in_ _the order._
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 rel>pondent 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 _e»-iparte._ The Tribunal set aside
the order of the Transport Authority and granted the permit in favour of C
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 cohtended :
l. The notice as required by rule 108(c) of the Rajasthan' Motor< Vehiclee
Rules, 1951 served on the appellant was not proper notice since it did not
mention the place ofi the hearing of the appeal.
2. The Tribunal did not consider the relevant matters as mentioned in D
section 47(a) to (f).
HELD : 1. The omission to mention the place is not fatal. The appe\lan( 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 evenj after the date mentioned
in tho notice. [460 Fl
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 E
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]
CML 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 alternative route permits. The Regional Transport Authority,
Jaipur (briefly the RTA) by its order of July 22, 1974, granted nonternporary 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
F
G
H
A
B
## c
D
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977) 1 S.C.R.
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 Transport 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. Bhandarc. the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, submits that the order of the State Trans_port Appellate Tribunal (briefly
the Tribunal) is invalid inasmuch as the appeal was heard ill: the absence of a proper notice of appeal as required under the law. He drawi,
our attention to rule l08(c) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules.
### 1951, which reads as follows :
''Upon receipt of an appeal preferred in accor1;!ance 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, implicit that a notice similar
to one intended under the rule for service on the appellant must also be
E · 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 !fitimating the respondent about the date, time
and place for hearing of the appeal but since the appellant had received
F the notice from the Tribunal indicating the date and time for hearing
of the appeal, the omission in the notice to describe the place where the
appeal is to be heard is not fatal enough to make the appeal proceeding
invalid before the Tribunal. The appellant, admittedly, is a resident or
Jaipur where also the office of the Tribunal is situated. He was also a
-stage carriage permit-holder and not a stranger to the office of the Tron~
port Authorities. Besides, although the notice of the appeal fixed the
G 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 h~ did not make
any effort to be present during this entire period, when the appeal was
pending, he could not be allowed to take advantage of the mere omisH sion 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.
IKRAM KHAN I'. STATE TRANSPORT _(Goswami,_ _J.)_ 461
Mr. Bhandarc next submits that the Tribunal failed to comply with
section 4 7 of the Act and did not at all consider 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 L!Jc
Tribunal it is manifest, on the face of the order of the RTA, that that
Authority, even at the first instance, did not make any reference to the
relevant considerations under section 4 7 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 oth~r 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 justifi~d in summarily rejecting the special appeal. The
second submission of the learned coµnsel also fails.
In the result the appeal is dismissed but we will make no order as
to costs.
P.H.P. _Appeal dismissed._
A
B
### c
D
