Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Quashing of Tribunal's Grant of Permits in Motor Vehicles Act Dispute Over Appealability of RTA's Rejection of New Route Applications. Decision on Necessity of New Route Under Section 47(3) Not Appealable Under Section 64(a) as It is a General Order Not Relating to Individual Applications.

The case involved a dispute over whether the Regional Transport Authority's order rejecting applications for permits to operate a direct bus service on a new route on the ground that the route was not necessary in public interest was appealable under Section 64(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

The appellants sought to set aside the High Court's order quashing the Appellate Tribunal's grant of permits, thereby restoring the Tribunal's order.

The Regional Transport Authority had rejected the appellants' applications for permits for a new bus route, and the Appellate Tribunal had allowed appeals and granted permits. The respondents challenged the Tribunal's order in writ petitions, contending that no appeal lay against the RTA's order under Section 64(a).

The single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions; the Division Bench in appeal held that no appeal lay under Section 64(a) and quashed the Tribunal's order.

Whether the Regional Transport Authority's order rejecting applications for a new route on the ground that the route was not necessary in public interest is an order under Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and therefore appealable under Section 64(a) of the Act, or whether it is a 'general order' under Section 47(3) that is not appealable.

Appellants' counsel argued that no separate provision exists for the RTA to decide whether a route should be opened; under Sections 47 and 57, once an application is made and published, the RTA's rejection amounts to a refusal under Section 48 and is appealable under Section 64(a). Respondents' counsel contended that Section 47(3) contains the power to decide whether a proposed route should be opened, and that it is only after such decision and fixing the number of permits that the question of granting permits arises under Section 48; the right of appeal is only against an order under Section 48, not against a general order under Section 47(3).

The decision of the Regional Transport Authority as to whether a proposed new route is necessary in public interest is a 'general order' passed under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is anterior to the consideration of individual applications under Section 48. Such a general order is not appealable under Section 64(a) of the Act, as appeals under that section are confined to orders granting or refusing to grant permits to individual applicants. The RTA's power to decide the necessity of a new route is subject only to revisional power under Section 64-A.

the R.T.A. was satisfied that there was no sufficient demand for such a direct service, and therefore, there was no justification for opening the proposed new route. the decisions of this Court clearly lay down that the R.T.A. has first to make 'a general order' as stated in Abdul Mateen’s case under s. 47(3) as to the number of permits necessary for a new route and he cannot exceed that limit while he is at the next stage when he considers under s. 48 read with, s. 56(7) as to. who among the applicants should be granted the permit or permits. If the order as to the number of permits is a 'general order' passed under s. 47(3) with which the individual applications are not concerned and is anterior to the stage under s. 48 when applications of the individual operators are taken into, consideration, and therefore is not appealable under s. 64(a) it must follow a fortiori that the decision as to whether the new route is necessary or not is equally 'a general order'

The appellants among others applied to the Regional Transport Authority for permits to operate a direct bus service on the Meerut-Dankaur route, which had no direct service. The RTA heard the applicants and objectors and rejected the applications on 28 July 1965, holding that there was no justification for opening the new route. The appellants appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which reversed the RTA's order and granted permits to the three appellants. The respondents filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court, contending that no appeal lay under Section 64(a). A single Judge dismissed the petitions. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court on 13 March 1969 held that no appeal lay and quashed the Tribunal's order. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: 46, 47(3), 48, 57, 64(a), 64-A