JUDGMENT
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of the above mentioned 12 special appeals, which involve for decision a common question, which is the main controversy in these appeals.
2. These petitions relate to the routes Bhadra-Hissar via Adampur, Hanumangarh-Dabwalia via Sangaria, Bhadra-Hissar via Balsamand and Rajgarh-Hissar via Jhunpa. The contention of the petitioners in all the petitions, which have been dismissed giving rise to these appeals, was that the petitioners should be granted renewal of their permits since the State Transport Undertaking could not be granted any permit due to the prohibition contained in the proviso to Sub-section (1-H) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act (here in after referred to as ‘the Act’). All these routes are inter-State routes & Sub-section (1-H) of Section 47 provides that a State Transport Undertaking shall be given preference over all other applicants while granting stage carriage permit for operating in any inter-State route. The proviso there in then lays down that the State Transport Undertaking shall not be granted permit under this Sub-section unless the authority is satisfied about the fulfillment of the condition contained in the proviso It is really the meaning of the words laying down the condition on the fulfillment of which preferential grant in favour of the Transport Undertaking can be made for operating in any inter-State route which is in dispute. Thus, the meaning of the proviso to Sub-section (1-H) of Section 47 is the real question for decision in these appeals No other facts are material for deciding this question except that the authority has held that the State Transport Under taking fulfilled the condition laid down in the proviso it is entitled to be given preference over all these petitioners in grant of the stage carriage permit for operating in the aforesaid inter-State routes. The Regional Transport Authority as well as the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and thereafter the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions have all taken this view.
3. The only relevant provisions for our purpose are Section 47(1-H) and Section 58(2) as amended insertion of a new proviso there in Section 47(1-H) reads as under :
47. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit:
(1-H) Not with standing anything contained in this section, an application for stage carriage permit from a State Transport under taking for operating in and inter-State route shall be given preference over all other applications:
Provided that the authority shall not grant a permit under this subsection unless it is satisfied that the State Transport Undertaking would be able to operate in the inter-State route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in any notified area or notified route as is referred to subsection (3) of Section 68D where the undertaking operates the service.
Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section, ‘inter-State route’ means any route lying contiguously in two or more States.
The new proviso inserted in its application to the State of Rajasthan by Rajasthan Amendment in subsection (2) of Section 58 after the second proviso in as under:
Provided further that other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit by a State Transport Undertaking, as defined in Section 58A, shall be given preference over applications from individual owners and co-operative societies.
4. As earlier stated the real controversy is about the meaning of the proviso to Sub-section (1-H) of Section 47. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that this proviso requires satisfaction of the authority that the State Transport Undertaking is adequately and efficiently discharging its entire responsibility for providing road transport service in all the notified routes as contemplated under all the approved scheme published under Section 68-D(3) of the Act. In other words, the argument is that unless the authority is satisfied that the State Transport Undertaking is efficiently and adequately providing road transport service on every route covered by each and every approved scheme published under Section 68-D till then it cannot be granted the permit under Sub-section (1-H) of Section 47 in preference over all other applicants. On this basis it is urged that an enquiry is contemplated for deciding whether this full responsibility of the State Transport Undertaking is being discharged under each and every approved scheme in respect of every route covered thereunder and it is only after this fact is found proved by the authority that such preference can be given to the State Transport Undertaking It is also contended that in the absence of such a finding by the authority, there is a complete bar to the grant in favour of the State Transport Undertaking by virtue of the proviso to Sub-section (1-H) of Section 47. It was urged that no such enquiry having been made, nor any such clear finding being recorded, the preferential grant in favour of the State Transport Undertaking is invalid. In reply learned Counsel for the State Transport Undertaking contended that the only condition prescribed by the proviso is the satisfaction of the authority that the State Transport Undertaking would be able to operate the inter-State route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in any notified route etc which it is operating at that time or in other words without detriment to the existing operation by the State Transport Undertaking on the notified routes and no more. Learned Counsel also contended that it would be sufficient to show that the operation in the inter-State route would be without utilising the resources from any notified route where the State Transport Undertaking is at that time operating the service. In our opinion, the contention of learned Counsel for the State Transport Under taking has to be accepted.
5. It is settled that preference can be given when other things are equal. Obviously Sub-section (1-H) of Section 47 provides for giving preference to the State Transport Undertaking for grant of a stage carriage permit to operate in any inter-State route, since it is expected that the State Transport Undertaking would be better suited to ply on the inter-State route. The proviso then lays down the condition subject to which alone this preference has to be given to the State Transport Undertaking. The object sought to be achieved by the proviso is clearly achieved, if operation by the State Transport Undertaking in the inter-State route can be made without adversely affecting its existing services, particularly in any notified area or notified route covered by the approved schemes published under Sub-section (3) of Section 68D. If such existing services which are being operated by the State Transport Under-taking are not adversely affected by this additional grant, then the State. Transport Undertaking is to be preferred for operating in any inter-State route. In our opinion, the words ‘where the undertaking operates the service’ occurring at the end of the proviso clearly point towards this construction of the proviso by indicating that the condition attached is only with regard to the existing services which are operated by the State Transport Undertaking under any approved scheme and not also those which may be under contemplation in the future. This construction made by us on the basis of the language used in the proviso also finds support from the objects and reasons for enacting this proviso. The relevant extract from the objects and reasons is as under:
If a State Transport Undertaking applies for a stage carriage permit operating in any inter-State route, such application will be given preference over all other applications provided the undertaking would be able to operate in the inter-State route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in any notified area or notified route where the undertaking already operates the service. (emphasis supplied)
6. It is, therefore, clear that the words “where the undertaking operates the service” at the end of the proviso clearly refer to the existing service provided by the State Transport Undertaking in the notified routes under the approved schemes and even if there be any ambiguity, the words “where the undertaking already operates the service’ used in the objects and reasons for enacting this provision removes the same. So the construction is also reasonable, since it contemplates an enquiry which is feasible and not unduly comber some. The proviso only requires that the existing services provided by the State Transport Undertaking on all the notified routes covered under the approved schemes should not be adversely affected by this fresh grant and the State Transport Undertaking should be in a position to operate in the inter State route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate existing services. If the State Transport Undertaking is able to satisfy the authority of its ability to do so, the condition laid down in the proviso is satisfied and it must be given preference over all other applicants in grant of the stage carriage permit for operating in the inter-State route.
7. In all these cases the Regional Transport Authority and then the State Transport Appellate Tribunal have reached the conclusion that the State Transport Undertaking has shown it to their satisfaction that it will be able to operate in the inter-State route under the fresh grant without any detriment to the efficiency and adequacy of the existing services it is providing on the notified routes under the approved schemes. The burden having been discharged by the Stage Transport Undertaking, the condition prescribed by the proviso was fulfilled to enable the authority to make the grant in favour of the State Transport Undertaking.
8. The above discussion disposes of the main point urged in support of all these appeals. We shall now refer to some minor points urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants in some of these cases.
9. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that the Regional Transport Authority took into account subsequent events after hearing and closing the cases without giving any opportunity to the appellants to rebut that material. It was also urged that out of 83 documents filed by the appellants before the Regional Transport Authority in rebuttal of this material only 2 were accepted, while remaining 81 were rejected. There is no merit in this contention. The mere fact that the appellants filed these documents out of which two were taken into account shows that they had the knowledge of the subsequent material being used for the purpose of deciding these cases and it is for this reason that they filed these documents out of which two were also taken into account. Moreover, the subsequent events relate only to matters of record pertaining to operation of the existing routes by the State Transport Undertaking. There is thus no prejudice to the appellants. This argument is, therefore, devoid of any merit.
10. It was then urged that grant of all these permits on inter-State routes to the State Transport Undertaking would result in a monopoly being granted in their favour. It is sufficient to say that the provision is for giving preference and it does not provide for creating monopoly. There is no challenge to the validity of the provision and such a provision for preference does not suffer from any vice as held in Dr. Venkatachalam etc. v. Dy Transport Commissioner and Ors.
11. In Mohan Lal’s case (D.B. Special Appeal No. 961 of 1986) it was urged on behalf of the appellant that no affidavit was filed by the State Transport Undertaking and yet it was held by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that Mohan Lal did not rebut the affidavit of the State Transport Undertaking. It was urged that there was in fact no material produced by the State Transport Undertaking in this case to discharge its burden of proof to show fulfillment of the condition prescribed by the proviso to subsection (1-H) of Section 47. It may be mentioned that all the appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal including that in Mohan Lal’s case were heard together and the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants were common placing reliance on the same material. A further affidavit was also filed by the State Transport Undertaking before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in one of these appeals, (Dharampal’s case) and both sides relied on the same material for disposal of those appeals. The Regional Transport Authority had relied on decisions in recent matters which constitute material for recording its satisfaction about fulfillment of the condition laid down in the proviso. In such a situation it cannot be said that there was no material either before the Regional Transport Authority or before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Madan Lal’s case to hold that the condition prescribed by the proviso had been satisfied. This contention also fails.
12. It was also urged in some of these appeals that there was discrimination in making the grant in as much as the State Transport Undertaking did not contest the grant in favour of a few of the applicants, while it contested the grant to others. This contention is mentioned only to be rejected as it has no merit. No question of discrimination to attract Article 14 of the Constitution arises on these facts. Sub-section (l-H) of Section 47 requires preference to be given to the State Transport Undertaking over all other applicants so that the question of attracting this proviso arises only when the State Transport Undertaking has also applied for the grant. In a case where the State Transport Undertaking does not apply for the grant, there is no question of contesting the grant to an applicant for that route. This objection also has, therefore, no merit and is rejected.
13. No case for interference in any of these appeals has been made out by any of the appellants. All these appeals must, therefore, fail.
14. Consequently the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.