1951 (9) TMI 55 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of public carrier permit by Regional Transport Officer based on smuggling accusation.
2. Dismissal of appeal by Regional Transport Authority despite driver's discharge by criminal court.
3. Jurisdiction of quasi-judicial tribunal in considering findings of competent criminal courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner, the owner of a lorry with a public carrier permit, was accused of smuggling rice, leading to the suspension of his permit by the Regional Transport Officer. The petitioner, however, was discharged by the criminal court due to lack of evidence. Despite the criminal court's decision predating the permit suspension, the Regional Transport Authority upheld the suspension based on internal records suggesting illicit use of the lorry. The petitioner sought to challenge these decisions before the High Court through a writ petition.

2. The High Court emphasized that quasi-judicial tribunals like the Regional Transport Authority cannot disregard the findings of competent criminal courts when taking actions based on alleged offenses. The court highlighted the inconsistency of punishing the petitioner for an offense he was acquitted of by the criminal court. Referring to a similar case under the Madras Rationing Order, the court held that final decisions by quasi-judicial tribunals should align with the outcomes of criminal proceedings to avoid contradictory actions by different government departments.

3. The court concluded that if a criminal court discharges or convicts an individual before a decision by a Road Transport Tribunal, the tribunal must respect the criminal court's judgment. In cases where a criminal prosecution is ongoing for the same offense prompting action by the Transport Authority, the tribunal should await the criminal court's decision to prevent conflicting government actions. In the present case, the High Court quashed the orders of both the Regional Transport Officer and the Regional Transport Authority, citing the disregard of the criminal court's decision and awarded costs to the petitioner.