E. Kader Batcha vs R.M. Veeramani and Others

Markandey Katju, C.J.—This bunch of writ appeal and writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

It appears that a scheme has been framed u/s 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for granting 250 Mini Bus Permits for Madurai District. For

grant of permits, the method adopted by the Regional Transport Authority was ""first come, first served"" that is the earlier applications would be

given preference to the subsequent applications and accordingly, 244 permits were granted. Out of these, 12 permits have been surrendered and

hence there are still 18 vacancies, as on date, against which there are 54 applications.

The question, therefore, arises is to which, out of these 54 applications, should be granted these 18 permits? In our opinion, since the Regional

Transport Authority had adopted a fair and objective criterion of ""first come, firs served"", it should continue the same principle in granting remaining

permits.

We have been informed by some of the Counsel in some of the cases that against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, rejecting

applications, some of the applicants filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal in some

cases directed grant of permit, while in some cases it directed that the applications should be considered in accordance with law. In our opinion,

this was not proper for the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In all cases, it should have directed the Regional Transport Authority to decide the

applications in accordance with the criteria fixed by the Regional Transport Authority, which in this case was first come, first served.

Although the principle of ""first come, first served"" has net been specifically mentioned in Section 102 of the Act, in our opinion, it was open to

the Regional Transport Authority to frame any objective and fair criteria fir grant of permits where the applications are more than the vacancies The

principle s ""first come, first served"" certainly is one of those fair and objective criteria, and the Regional Transport Authority is certainly within its

jurisdiction to select this principle. Of course, it could have adopted some other criteria, but it is net for this Court to say which of the various

choices available to the Regional Transport Authority should have been followed. It is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Authority to select one

of the various choices available to it, as long as that choice is not totally arbitrary and unfair vide Rama Muthuramalingam, State Propaganda

Committee Member Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, . All that is required is that there should be some objective, fair and

reasonable criteria so that there is no grievance of pick and choose or collusion.

Hence we dispose of this bunch of writ appeal and writ petitions with the direction that in cases where the State Transport Appellate Tribunal

has directed issue of permit, that order shall be treated to be a direction that the applications shall be considered in accordance with the principle of

first come, first served"" which was followed earlier by the Regional Transport Authority. The 18 permits shall be granted accordingly. With these

observations, these appeals and writ petitions are disposed of finally. Connected W.A.M.Ps. and W.P.M.Ps. are closed.