9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under Article 228 to quash order by State Transport Appellate Tribunal Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash an order by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal related to the grant of a stage carriage permit. The Regional Transport Authority initially directed the permit to the petitioner, but an appeal by the second respondent led to a remand for fresh consideration. The subsequent decision by the first respondent granted the permit to the second respondent, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the third respondent through Ext. P-1 order dated 14-5-1965. The main contention raised was that the Tribunal erred in not considering the experience gained by the petitioner while operating the vehicle under the initially granted permit, which was later set aside. The petitioner argued that this experience should have been taken into account based on the public interest under Section 47(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner relied on a Full Bench decision regarding the evaluation of qualifications for a permit. The Court emphasized the principle that the acts of the Court should not harm litigants. It cited various legal maxims and precedents highlighting the duty of the Court to ensure that no party is prejudiced by its actions. The doctrine of restitution under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code was also discussed, emphasizing the need to restore parties to their original positions when affected by erroneous decrees. The Court ultimately held that the experience gained under a permit subsequently set aside should not be considered as a qualification in favor of an applicant in the same proceeding. Allowing such consideration would result in the petitioner benefitting from a wrong decision, contrary to the principles of justice and fairness. The Court concluded that Ext. P-1 order did not warrant interference, and the petition was dismissed without costs.
|
