9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge of correctness of order by State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 2. Power of State Transport Appellate Tribunal to remand the case. 3. Interpretation of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 4. Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to proceedings. 5. Jurisdiction and powers of appellate authorities. 6. Inherent power of appellate courts to remand cases. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involves an appeal by the 3rd respondent against the decision in O. P. No. 313 of 1953 where the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to the petitioner and rejected the application of the 3rd respondent. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case, leading to a challenge regarding the correctness of this decision (para 2). 2. The key issue revolves around the power of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to remand cases. Vaidialingam J. held that the Tribunal had no power of remand and even if it did, the circumstances did not justify the remand. The High Court agreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that the remand was unnecessary as the appellate tribunal had all necessary materials to make a decision without remanding the case (para 3-4). 3. The interpretation of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is crucial in determining the powers of the appellate authority. The Court noted that while the section does not explicitly mention the power of remand, it does not define the powers of the appellate authority either. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted that the power to remand can be considered inherent in the constitution of an appellate court (para 6-8). 4. The Court also discussed the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the proceedings. It was noted that the absence of a provision making the Code applicable does not impact the existence of the power of remand if it is essential for the proper exercise of appellate jurisdiction (para 13). 5. Considering the nature of proceedings before State Transport Appellate Tribunals as quasi-judicial, the Court emphasized the importance of ensuring a just decision through the appellate process. Precedents were cited to support the judicial nature of grant or refusal of permits by transport authorities (para 14-15). 6. The judgment delves into the inherent power of appellate courts to remand cases, citing legal scholars and maxims of law to support the view that a power to remand is necessary for the effective exercise of jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the power to remand is available to tribunals under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and is implicit in the appellate jurisdiction created by the section (para 16-19). In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed based on the agreement with the previous decision and the understanding that the power to remand is inherent in the appellate jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
|
