1964 (2) TMI 97 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Publication of the substance of the application under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. Validity of the permit without proper counter-signature by the Tumkur Regional Transport Authority.
3. Constitution of the Bangalore Regional Transport Authority in accordance with Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Publication of the substance of the application under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:

The petitioner contended that the substance of the 4th respondent's application for the stage carriage permit had not been published under Section 57(3) of the M.V. Act, and that the route for which the permit was granted was not in accordance with what had been published. The court noted that the petitioner did not raise this issue before any of the Authorities under the Act. The substance of the 4th respondent's application was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 25-12-1958, which was sufficient to make the petitioner aware of the application. The court found that the omission of some intermediate stations in the Gazette notification did not necessarily mean non-compliance with Section 57(3). The petitioner was not prejudiced by this omission as he was aware of the route. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no strength in the petitioner's contention regarding the publication under Section 57(3).

2. Validity of the permit without proper counter-signature by the Tumkur Regional Transport Authority:

The petitioner argued that the permit granted to the 4th respondent was invalid for the portion of the route within Tumkur District due to non-compliance with the rules under Section 63(1) of the M.V. Act. The court observed that the petitioner did not raise this issue before any of the Authorities under the Act. It was not a case of omission of the counter-signature of the Tumkur R.T.A. The court noted that the petitioner was now arguing non-compliance with Section 63(3) regarding previous publication and hearing of objections before counter-signing. However, this ground was not urged before any of the Authorities. The court referred to a decision indicating that permits operating without counter-signature by virtue of a rule under Section 63(1) are valid. Therefore, the court found the petitioner's attack on this ground misconceived.

3. Constitution of the Bangalore Regional Transport Authority in accordance with Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:

The petitioner contended that the R.T.A., Bangalore, was not constituted in accordance with Section 44(2) of the M.V. Act as it did not include a non-official member at the relevant time. The court noted that the petitioner did not raise this issue before the R.T.A. or the appellate Tribunals and took the chance of succeeding in the proceedings. The court discussed the principle that a person who participates in proceedings without objecting to the jurisdiction of the tribunal is precluded from raising such an objection later. The court referenced various legal authorities supporting this principle. The court concluded that the petitioner, by his conduct, was precluded from now arguing the invalidity of the R.T.A.'s constitution. Therefore, this ground of attack was also found to be unhelpful to the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition with costs, concluding that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner could succeed. The petitioner's conduct precluded him from raising the objections at this stage, and the procedural requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act were deemed to have been substantially complied with.