M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THESE petitions are disposed of by the following order. Before stating the facts relating to each of the petitions, it is necessary to record that Counsel for petitioner in W. Ps. Nos. 11922 and 11923/1985 at the time of arguments has not pressed the petitions. Therefore, the said two petitions are dismissed as not pressed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. . No. 11921 / 1935 who is none other than the petitioner in the petitions which I have just now dismissed above made an application for variation of the conditions of his permit under sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 57 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) so that he would be able to operate on the route mangalore to Manipal Via Mulky and udipi in addition to the route already cevered by the permit Mangalore to gangolly yia Udipi. Gangolly is the northern termini, Mangalore is the southern termini on the coastal route in dakshina Kannada District. The application was made to the 2nd responden'- regional Transport Authority, Dakshina kannada District, (hereinafter referred to as the R. T. A. ). That application came to be rejected by the R. T. A. at its meeting held on 10-1-1982 on the ground that there were several stage carriage services operating from Udipi between 1-40 P. M. and 2 P. M. towards Mangalore and therefore there was no need for an additional service from Udipi which is only three miles away from Manipal. It also held that the variation sought or proposed to the permit held between mangalore and Gangolly was such as would alter the character of the peimit resulting in the violation of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnateka State Transport appellate Tribunal, Bangelore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) The tribunal rejected the appeal affirming the order of the R. T. A. for more or less the same reasons. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnateka State Transport appellate Tribunal, Bangelore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) The tribunal rejected the appeal affirming the order of the R. T. A. for more or less the same reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court inter alia contending that the fact that subsequent variations have been granted permitting stage carriage operation between Mangalore or Mangalore railway Station to Manipal with established the need and therefore the finding recorded by the R. T. A. that there was no need was inaccurate ana that having been brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the finding in his appeal about the need and further that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act is not attracted whan variation is sought under sub-sec (8) of Sec. 57 of the Act and therefore he should have been granted the permit by the tribunal and even if it is ultimately held that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act is attracted, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent-R. T. A to consider the case of the petitioner after the R. T. A. had complied with the requirements of sub-sec. (3) of sec 47 of the Act. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in W. P. . No. 11330 1985 was an existing stage carriage operator on the route Mangalore to Byndoor via Mulky and Udipi with one round trip. He applied under sub-sec. (8) of sec. 57 of the Act for the variation of the condition of the permit so as to include a route trip from Mangalore Railway station to Manipal. That application came to be allowed by the R. T. A. There were several objectors. They filed appeals before the 1st respondent-Tribunal. They were appeals Nos. 30, 39, 68 and 176/1985 on the file of the Tribunal. By a common order passed, the Tribunal set aside the grant in favour of the petitioner essentially on the ground that variation sought for violated sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act as held by the supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shiv chand Amolak Chand v R T A. and others (AIR 1984 S C. 9 ). By a common order passed, the Tribunal set aside the grant in favour of the petitioner essentially on the ground that variation sought for violated sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act as held by the supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shiv chand Amolak Chand v R T A. and others (AIR 1984 S C. 9 ). It also made certain observations, like the route Mangalore railway Station to Manipal which was in effect a new route and therefore not permissible to be varied under sub-sec. (8) of Sec 57 of the Act. In the result, it set aside the grant and remanded the matter for consideration by the R. T. A. of all applications for the route Mangalore to Manipal or Mangalore Railway Station to Manipal together after doing the necessary exercise under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 47 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that under sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 57 of the Act new routes can be added to an existing permit as a variation ; that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act is nof attracted and in any event the direction to the, R. T. A. to invite fresh applications after going through the exercise under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act, apart from considering the existing applicants was not proper and therefore the judgment of the tribunal was liable to be set aside by this Court restoring the resolution of the r. T. A. granting the variation in question to the petitioner. ( 4 ) MR. H. B. Datar, learned Senior counsel, has addressed arguments for the petitioner in W. P. . No. 11330/1985 while Mr. Ananda Shetty has argued for the petitioner in the other writ petition. Mr. M. Rangaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-appellants before the Tribunal, submitted the arguments. ( 5 ) FOR the petitioner, it is contended that sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 57 of the act permits variation by addition of a new route in respect of all permits under the Act and therefore while varying the conditions of that permit question of going through the exercise mandated under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act was totally unnecessary and uncalled for. (8) of Sec. 57 of the act permits variation by addition of a new route in respect of all permits under the Act and therefore while varying the conditions of that permit question of going through the exercise mandated under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act was totally unnecessary and uncalled for. The Tribunal having concurred with the need for a service between Mangalore railway Station and Manipal having regard to the material considered by it which essentially was to demonstrate need of access to out of State passengers arriving by train at Mangalore to reach manipal where a well equipped, well-known and well administered hospital is run, the Tribunal ought to have permitted the variation in public interest and therefore the need for directing fresh determination under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 47 of the Act was totally uncalled for and more so, when that provision was not attracted to proceedings under sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 57 of the Act. ( 6 ) PER contra for respondents it is contended that a permit in respect of a specified route when varied results in grant of a new route totally different from the original route and the exercise of determination required under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act becomes imperative and therefore the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the grant and remanding the matter to the R. T. A. notwithstanding the fact established that there was need for stage carriage service between Mangalore Railway Station and manipal. ( 7 ) IT would be useful to state at this stage that the petitioner in the first of the petitions through his Counsel has submitted that he will be more than satisfied if his case is also remanded for consideration of the R. T. A. if the Tribunal's judgment and order in the latter writ petition is sustained by this Court. In other words, both the petitioners have to really succeed only on the view this court takes in regard to sub-sec. (3) of sec. 47 of the Act and the need to follow the procedure therein on the facts of these cases. ( 8 ) EVEN in respect of applications made under sub-sec, (8) of Sec. 57 of the Act if this Court were to come to the conclusion that sub-sec. (3) of sec. 47 of the Act and the need to follow the procedure therein on the facts of these cases. ( 8 ) EVEN in respect of applications made under sub-sec, (8) of Sec. 57 of the Act if this Court were to come to the conclusion that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act is not attracted then the petitioner in W. P. . No. 11921/1985 contends that there should be a direction to the r. T. A. to consider his application which is the earliest in point of time and grant the variation to his permit. ( 9 ) A number of cases decided by this Court have been cited in support of the contentions advanced for either side. At the appropriate stage I will make reference to them. ( 10 ) BUT more important is to examine sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act, its scope and purpose in the scheme of the Act. Unfortunately, except in the case of R. Obliswami Naidu v. State transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and others [a. I. R. 1969 S. C 1130], the said sub-section has not fallen for direct consideration as to its scope and applicability. In the aforementioned decision, it is laid down that observance of mandate of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act is imperative before a permit may be granted to any stage operator on a route on which there was no stage carriage operation before. In that case, the existing stage carriage permit holder in Tamil Nadu applied for a permit on a totally different route namely, Bhavani to Veiiithiruppur on which no stage carriage was plying at that time. The applicant was granted the permit. Some of the objectors went up in appeal to the Additional State Transport Appellate tribunal, Madras. The Tribunal held that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act was attracted and set aside the grant. The grantee of that permit moved the high Court at Madras under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court confirmed the view expressed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the grantee approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on the facts of that case ruled as follows in regard to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act. "sub-SEC. The grantee of that permit moved the high Court at Madras under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court confirmed the view expressed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the grantee approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on the facts of that case ruled as follows in regard to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act. "sub-SEC. (3) of Sec, 47 of the Act if read by itself does not thiow any light on the controversy before us but if sections 47 and 57 of the Act are read together it appears to us to be clear that the view taken by the appellate Tribunal and the High Court is the correct view. If contrary view is taken it will throw open the door for manipulations and nepotism. There may be possibility of the personality of the applicant influencing the decision of the R. T. A. on the question of need for a stage carriage permit in the route and thereby public interest which should be the main consideration while taking a decision under Sec. 47 (3) may suffer. If we accept the view taken by the R. T. A. as correct, an operator who happens to apply for the route first will be in a commanding position. The R. T. A. will have no opportunity to choose between competing operators and hence public interest might suffer. "from what is expressed in the decision of the Supreme Court as above, it is clear that the mind of the Court was directed to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the act only respect of grant of a permit on a new route to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions contained in sec. 57 of the Act particularly sub-sec. (2) thereof which rotates to the procedure in respect of applications for grant of permits and not to variation of permits. This decision has been followed strictly by this Court in the case of Meenakshi and etc. , v State Transport Appellate tribunal and others [a. I. R. 1984 Kar. 221]. But in Meenakshi's case applications with which the Court was concerned were for grant of variation of the conditions of the permit and not for grant of new permits. This decision has been followed strictly by this Court in the case of Meenakshi and etc. , v State Transport Appellate tribunal and others [a. I. R. 1984 Kar. 221]. But in Meenakshi's case applications with which the Court was concerned were for grant of variation of the conditions of the permit and not for grant of new permits. In other words, by implication I have no choice but to conclude that this court applied the ratio in Obliswami Naidu's case to applications for variations of the conditions of the permit. It is in this context that this Court having regard to many other rulings notably, the ruling of the Supreme court in Mohd. Ibrahim etc v The State transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (AIR 1970 S. C. 1542) which more or less affirms the view that within a region sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act is atttacted though it is not so attracted in respect of inter-regional routes which necessarily includes inter-State routes. ( 11 ) THE Full Bench of this Court in the case of Revanappa Sangappa v R. T A. , bidar and others (1979 (1) Karnataka Law journal, 171) has laid down that if a person made suo motu application to the r. T. A. for grant of a permit for a stage carriage over a new route in respect of which there wa. no prior determination under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act and thereafter the R. T. A. made a determination under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act, it would not be legally impermissible for the R T. A. to consider and decide at its next meeting whether a permit should be granted to that person without inviting applications. In other words, the Full Bench expressed the opinion that there was no bar for an application being made for grant of a permit on a new route even if there was no determination made by the R. T. A. in respect of that route in terms of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act, so long as the R. T. A. made the determination before grant of the permit. It further held that if the two decisions one under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act, so long as the R. T. A. made the determination before grant of the permit. It further held that if the two decisions one under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 and the other on the merits of the application are independent and mutually exclusive, then the requirements of the law were satisfied and the interval of time between the two assumes no materiality. In reaching that conclusion the Full Bench had examined not only Obliswami Naidu's case Supra but also many other subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. Having considered those decisions, it came to the conclusion that there should be an antecedent determination anterior both in point of time and point of fact under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act before an application for permit is considered and that the matter is more of substance tnan of mere form and the finding as to the existence of such determination of the number of stage carriages for which permit may be granted under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act can in appropriate circumstances and on the basis of the material available on record be a matter of and be based on inference. ( 12 ) RELYING on the decision of the full Bench, in the case of Sanjeeva maria M. K. v K. S. T. A. T. and others [1982 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 498] i held that the act of determining the number of permits on a route should be in accordance with the provisions in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act and not taking into consideration extraneous matters, such as the number of applicants or the applicant himself. That number should have relevance to factors enumerated in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 47 of the Act. I also held in the said case that a decision under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 47 of the Act which is essentially a decision as to administrative policy must be anterior, both in point of time and in fact, to the decision to grant or reject an application for permit. ( 13 ) I must confess that the number of decisions on the subject of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act do lead to some confusion. Such confusion is not warranted if the section is read as it is intended to be read by the Legislature. ( 13 ) I must confess that the number of decisions on the subject of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act do lead to some confusion. Such confusion is not warranted if the section is read as it is intended to be read by the Legislature. The confusion, according to me, mostly, is due to the practice of the various r. T. As' to render otiose part of that sub-section. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act reads as follows :" (3) A Regional Transport Authority may, haying 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:' before analysing sub-section extracted above, it would be useful to point out that sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 47 of the act provides for four factors which should be botne in mind by the authority granting the permit. They are ; public interest generally, saving of time and convenience particularly, benefit to local area if any and the existing services of operators together with representations of the public or local authorities and the road conditions or safe motorability of the roads. Sub-sees. (1a) to (1h) were introduced by subsequent amendments and they provide for the types of reservation to be made in favour of certain categories of persons. Sub-sec (2) of Sec. 47 of the Act does no more than to inhibit the transport authority to grant the permit, if condition relating to speed at which the vehicle may travel on a particular route is (ikely to be contravened. ( 14 ) SUB-SEC. Sub-sec (2) of Sec. 47 of the Act does no more than to inhibit the transport authority to grant the permit, if condition relating to speed at which the vehicle may travel on a particular route is (ikely to be contravened. ( 14 ) SUB-SEC. (3) of Sec. 47 of the act is undoubtedly a command to the r T. A. to 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 Limiting the number of stage carriages generally has reference only to the number of vehicles and the use of the word 'or' if construed as conjunctive then the generel limitation on the number of stage carriages would extend to the specified type as well but if the word 'or' occurring after 'generally' is read as disjunctive then the act of limiting may be extended to any specified type of vehicle for which the stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region. The regional Transport Authorities in this state have not granted stage carriage permits region-wise or area-wise so far and the learned Counsel have not been able to point out an instance. Therefore, limiting the number area-wise or regionwise has never fallen for consideration by judicial authorities. All stage carriage permits have been granted in respect of specified route or routes within a region or out-side region, inter-regional or inter-state. The effect of it is that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act has come to be disassociated with grant of permits on area or regional basis, ff this is borne in mind, before proceeding to consider an application made under Sec. 57 of the Act at any time after the application is made, the R. T. A. must necessarily determine the number of stage carriages i. e. , the physical number of vehicles to be used at a specified time in a specified region or an area or on a route before proceeding to grant a permit in respect of such region, area or route Nor does the exercise of power under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act depend upon an application made suo motu by intending operator; it is capable of being exercised without there being an application and on such exercise of determining the number of stage carriages on specified routes or area or region the R. T. A. is empowered to call for applications. From this reasoning as to scope and applicability of sub-sec. (3) of See. 47 of the Act, it would emerge as a corollary that without determining the number of vehicles to be operated on a route, the R. T. A. cannot acquire jurisdiction to dispose of an application to grant a permit, whether by way of variation or by way of a fresh or virgin grant. This does not necessarily compel the R. T. A. as held by the Full Bench of this Court, to invite applications every time a permit is to be "granted as clearly expressed in revanappa Sangappa's case as follows :"prudence and propriety and considerations of promotion of public interest might well require and persuade the R. T. A. that applications be invited and the pending application disposed of along with applications so received in response to notification inviting applications. But the question is whether a disposal of a pending application independently and not along with applications to be so received in response to the notification is, strictly speaking, illegal or without jurisdiction. There seems to be nothing in the language of Secs. 47, 48 and 57 which compel such a view, however salutary the result of that view might be. A contrary view would lead inevitably to the position that every suo motu application would only serve to constitute the cause or genesis of a notification inviting applications and cannot, itself be considered at all on merits except along with applications to be so received in response to the notification. A contrary view would lead inevitably to the position that every suo motu application would only serve to constitute the cause or genesis of a notification inviting applications and cannot, itself be considered at all on merits except along with applications to be so received in response to the notification. " ( 15 ) THE Full Bench further fortifies the conslusion I wish to draw that all that ts required to be done by the R. T. A. is to determine the number of stage carriages to be operated in a specified region or area or on a route before actually granting a permit either on suo motu application or on applications called for by the R. T. A. If suo motu application has to stand by, merely because determination of number of vehicles is not done, it does not necessarily follow that the R. T. A. should call for fresh applications in addition to the suo motu applications. Suo motu application may be disposed of on its own merits. But it cannot be done without determining the number of vehicles. This is what that emerges from the various decisions and a plain reading of sub sec. (3) of Sec. 47 read with Secs. 48 and 57 of the Act. ( 16 ) THEREFORE, the question is whether this conclusion in any way effects the facts of the case on hand. On the route in question it is submitted without contradiction from either side that the route existed since 1978 as an independent route on which about five operators were operating. But at that time the determination appears to have been for five stage carriages to operate on that route. There does not appear to be any material to show that number has been changed since. If on the application made by the petitioner in the first of the petitions above, the R. T. A. thought that there was no need on account of the frequency between Mangalore and Udipi and therefore did not propose to enlarge the number of stage carriages on the route Mangalore to Manipal, I must draw the inference that the R. T. A. had no intention to re-fix the number either decreasing it or increasing it. Therefore, when the application of the petitioner in the second of the petitions was actually granted by the R. T. A. , there is no evidence that it determined, the number of stage carriages to be operated afresh on the route in question. If that determination was not made, then the giant must be held to be hit by non-observance of the requirements of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act. It really does not matter as contended for the parties, whether variation results in a minor alteration in the route or results in the grant of a permit to a substantially but not totally a new route. The requirements of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act is imperative when the end result is a new route being added to an existing permit or granted as a fresh permit. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shiv Chand's case supra are binding on this Court and the observations are to the following efffect:"it may be possible to say that wnere a totally new route is sought to be included by an application to vary the conditions of a permit or the alteration of the route sought by such an application is of such a drastic character that it becomes substantially a new route, the application, though in form an application to vary the conditions of the permit, would in effect and substance, be an application for grant of a new permit and in such a case, a view may conceivably be taken with some degree of plausibility that the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted on such new route should first be determined under Sec. 47 sub-sec (3) before the application to vary the conditions of the permit can be entertained. "if this persuaded the Tribunal in the case of the petitioner in the 2nd of the petitions to construe that there was violation of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act, this Court ought not to interfere with that conclusion. "if this persuaded the Tribunal in the case of the petitioner in the 2nd of the petitions to construe that there was violation of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Act, this Court ought not to interfere with that conclusion. In the result and in the light of the subsequent events the r. T. A. to which the consideration of the case has been remanded must necessarily proceed to determine not the need which is held to have been established by the Tribunal itself, but the number of stage carriages that may be operated and thereafter select one of the applicants who is an applicant on or after 23-10-1981 but befo-e 15-9-1984 irrespective of the decision earlier taken in respect of those applications, whether such applications weie tor grant of a permit as if the route in question was a new route or by way of a variation. ( 17 ) IN the result and for the reasons i have given above both the petitions are liable to be dismissed subject to the directions contained. ( 18 ) ANY direction contained contrary to the direction in the order of the tribunal impugned by the petitioner in the second of the petitions, stands quashed. The R. T. A. while disposing of the applications on merit in regard to selection of applicant shall bear in mind that the need established as per the finding of the Tribunal is in respect of persons arriving from out of State by train at Mangalore Railway Station and therefore the service should be essentially meant for such passengers of the train having regard to the arrival timings of out of State trains at Mangalore and the r. T. A. should not make any distinction between Mangalore City or Mangalore railway Station as long as the applicants produce the necessary authorisation from the railway authorities to pick-up passengers from the Railway Station and directly convey them to Manipal Via mangalore Bus Stand. ( 19 ) THE R. T. A. shall dispose of the matters in accordance with the directions given above within two months from the date of receipt of this order. I must also add, on the facts of these cases variation sought for is really for addition of a new route to the existing permits having regard to the definition of 'route' in the Act read with the special need established. I must also add, on the facts of these cases variation sought for is really for addition of a new route to the existing permits having regard to the definition of 'route' in the Act read with the special need established. ( 20 ) PETITIONS are dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .