9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (3) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d jurisdiction. - SASTRI, M. PATANJALI MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND MUKHERJEA, B.K. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN AIYAR AND N. CHANDRASEKHARA, JJ. For the Appellant : M.C. Setalvad with C. R. Pattabhi Raman. For the Respondent: C.K. Daphtary with M. Natesan, V.K.T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras with R. Ganapathi lyer JUDGMENT CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J. This appeal arises as the result of special leave to appeal granted by this Court on the 1st of May, 1951, against an order of the Madras High Court dated 13th April, 1951, quashing certain proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, and the Central Traffic Board, Madras, dated 19th January, 1950, and 3rd March, 1950, respectively, and an order of the first respondent (the State of Madras) dated 7th November, 1950, and directing the issue to Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., (Petitioners before the High Court) of permits for the five buses in respect of which a joint application had been made originally by them and one T.D. Balasubramania Pillai. The present appellant, G. Veerappa Pillai, was the fourth respondent in the High Court. The present first respondents (Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.) were the petitioners before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cretary granted this application on the same date Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., took the matter before the Central Road Traffic Board and they made an order on 16th August, 1944, upholding the issue of temporary permits to Veerappa Pillai for his buses M.D.O. 920, 894,918, M.S.C. 7632 and 7482, but setting aside the transfer of registry of the original buses and the transfer of the permits relating to the same. On an application by Veerappa Pillai to review its order dated 16th August, 1944, the Central Road Traffic Board allowed on 27th November, 1944, only the transfer of the ownership of the buses but not a transfer of the permits. Yet another move in the game was this Veerappa Pillai filed a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, on 3rd October, 1944, for recovery of possession of the original five buses from Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., on the strength of his purchase from Balasubramania Pillai. The Subordinate Judge appointed Veerappa Pillai as Receiver on 17th March, 1945, and the five disputed buses were delivered to him on 26th April, 1945. Two of the buses M.D.O. 6 and 7 were repaired by him and put on the route under his temporary permits. The suit wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permanent permits for the buses of Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Porayar, referred to above in lieu of the existing temporary permits." On the basis of this Government order, permanent permits were issued in favour of Veerappa Pillai on 18th April, 1949. Getting to know of this last order, Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.,approached the Government Madras with a petition praying for clarification of the order by making it expressly subject to the decision of the High Court regarding the title to the said five buses and that in the event of the High Court deciding the appeal in favour of Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd. "the above said five permanent permits will be taken away from Veerappa Pillai and given to them." The Minister of Transport, who dealt with the matter, stated on the petition "that was my intention also." The High Court reversed the decree of the Sub-Court on 2nd September, 1949, and came to the conclusion that the title of Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., to the five buses prevailed over that of Veerappa Pillai. On 19th September, 1949, they applied to the Government for cancellation of the five permits issued to Veerappa Pillai and for grant of the same to them. The Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the orders and the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, and the State of Madras dated 19th January, 1950, 3rd March, 1950, and 7th November, 1950, respectively, and for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other such appropriate directions to the first respondent to transfer, issue or grant "the five pucca permits in respect of the route Kumbakonam to Karaikkal to the petitioner herein" (Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.) It is on this petition that'the order challenged in this appeal was made by the High Court. The High Court took the view that throughout all the stages prior to the High Court's decree, the parties, the transport authorities vested with the power to issue permits, and the Government also proceeded upon the footing that the transfer of the permits was dependent on the title to the buses and that Veerappa Pillai obtained the temporary and permanent permits only in his capacity as transferee and not in his individual right. To quote the learned Chief Justice:"the conduct of the parties, the attitude of the transport authorities including the Government are all explicable only on the assumption that the rights of partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... something could have been said in favour of Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., in the event of their ultimate success in the High Court as regards the title to the five buses. But the said order altered the situation. In the order, the direction for the grant of permanent permits is not rested solely on the decision of the Sub-Court in favour of Veerappa Pillai but another reason was also given, namely, that Government considered it undesirable to keep the buses running on temporary permits for a long and indefinite period. In giving this reason, they were stating a policy. As observed already, the High Court by their judgment dated 2nd September, 1949, reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed Veerappa Pillai's suit for possession of the buses based on his title. If it were the law that the question of possession based on ownership was decisive as regards the grant of permits, and if no other circumstances were available to be taken into account when the question of the issue of permanent permits again came up for consideration, it would have been easy to hold that Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., had at least a preferential claim. But unfortunately for them, both thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which lay in French territory. It was further pointed out that there was no subsisting joint application to support the request for transfer and that the original permits in the name of Bala. subramanian had ceased to exist after 31st December 1944. The Government had also before them two petitions dated 8th March, 1950, and 25th October, 1950, from Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd. and two petitions dated 29th March, 1950, and 8th June, 1950, from Veerappa Pillai. It is on the basis of all these materials that the Government declined to interfere with the decision of the Central Road Traffic Board. It is contended for the appellant that in this state of affairs the High Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution had no right to interfere with the orders of the transport authorities. It is unnecessary for the disposal of this appeal to consider and decide on the exact scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. Whether the writs it can issue must be analogous to the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari specified therein and the power is subject to all the limitations, or restrictions imposed on the exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to him, there was manifest injustice to his client in allowing them to do so and this was the reason which impelled the High Court to make the order which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. The Motor Vehicles Act is a statute which creates new rights and liabilities and prescribes an elaborate procedure for their regulation. No one is entitled to a permit as of right even if he satisfies all the prescribed conditions. The grant of a permit is entirely within the discretion of the transport authorities and naturally depends on several circumstances which have to be taken into account. The Regional Transport Authority and the Provincial Transport Authority are entrusted under section 42 with this power. They may be described as administrative bodies exercising quasijudicial functions in the matter of the grant of permits. Under rule 8 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules the Regional Transport Authority is called the Road Traffic Board and the Provincial Transport Authority is called the Central Road Traffic Board. These bodies or authorities are constituted by the Provincial' Government. The matters which are to be taken into account in granting or refusing a stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
