9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (2) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion of which was common with the route for which the 4th respondent has sought the permission. He appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the S.T.A.T.) against the resolution of the R.T.A. granting the permit to the 4th respondent. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the S.T.A.T. The further appeal against decision of the S.T.A.T to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the M.R.A.T.) by the present petitioner was unsuccessful and was dismissed on 3-1-1961. (The present petitioner as well as another objector had both preferred appeals to the S.T.A.T, and then to the M.R.A.T.; it was by common judge those appeals). Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. Sri M.R. Venkatanarasimhachar has appeared for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Shamsundar for the 4th respondent and Government Pleader Sri T. Radha Krishna for the first respondent (The Mysore Revenue Appellant Tribunal). (2) The petitioner, in seeking to obtain a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings which took place before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the Authorities constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, has urged three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for a permit, had not been specified in the Gazette publication. In the route between Bangalore to via Kunigal, that portion between Bangalore and Huliyurdurga via Tavarekere and Magadi was common to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. At Huliyurdurga, the petitioner's route deviated southwards and proceeded to Yalagawadi cross and then took northwest direction and passing through Kempanahalli reached Anchepalya cross. From thereon, the route to via Kunigal was common to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the portion of the route which proceeded from Huliyurdurga to Yalagawadi cross and from thereon to Anchepalya via Kempanahalli, had not been specified in the Gazette publication which merely referred to the 4th respondent's prayer for a permit to operate on the route between Bangalore to via Kunigal via Tavarakere and Magadi. It is no doubt true, that this portion of the 4th respondent's route which passed via Yalagawadi cross and Kempanahalli had not been specified in the Gazette notification. But, what is required under Section 57(3) is the publication of the application or the substance thereof, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention that the substance of the 4th respondent's application had not been published in accordance with the requirements of Section 57 (3) of the M.V. Act. (4) So far as the second contention is concerned, the stand which the petitioner had taken before the Authorities under the M.V. Act was that the permit (granted to the 4th respondent), in so far as it related to the route within Tumkur District, was not valid as there was no proper compliance with the rules under Section 63(1) of the M.V. Act. for dispensing with the counter-signature of the Tumkur R.T.A. It seems to us, that the petitioner's attack on this ground was misconceived; because, it is not a case in which there is any omission of the counter-signature of the Tumkur R.T.A. In view of this fact, Sri Venkatanarasimhachar has, very rightly, not advanced before us of any contention based on any omission of such counter-signature. What is now sought to be urged by him is, that there has been non-compliance with the requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 63 of the M.V. Act as there was no previous publication and the hearing of objections, if any, by the R.T.A., Tumkur, before the counter-signing the permit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the R.T.A. and had availed himself of a chance of being successful before that Authority, ought not to be permitted at this late stage to raise an objection of this nature. By way of an explanation for the petitioner's failure to have raised this contention either before the R.T.A. or before the two appellate Tribunals, Sri Venkatanarasimhachar stated that they might not have decided a question pertaining to the validity of the constitution of the R.T.A. even if such a question had been raised before them. It is further stated by him that in some other subsequent case, a Full Bench of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal had expressed a view that it was not within its competence to decide a question pertaining to the legality of the constitution of the R.T.A and that the petitioner did not raise any objection in regard to the invalidity of the constitution of the R.T.A. Nor did he approach the High Court, at that stage, complaining about the R.T.A.'s lack of jurisdiction on the ground of its invalid constitution. The defect, if any, in the constitution of the R.T.A. was there, at the time when the petitioner had to put forward his contentions against the grant of the permit to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was an initial lack of jurisdiction which rendered its proceedings void. The correctness of this stand of Sri Venkatanarasimhachar has not been conceded by the learned Advocate for the 4th respondent. Relying on an earlier decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Amaravathi Motor Transport Co. v. State of Andhra AIR 1956 AP 232, it has been argued by Sri Shamsunder, that the language of Section 44(2) of the M.V. Act is capable of being understood as merely providing the Government with a field of selection consisting of both officials and non-officials, out of which not less than two may be selected. As against this, it has been pointed out by Sri Venkatanarasimhachar that this view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has not been accepted by the Rajasthan High Court in the Full Bench decision reported in Janta Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., v. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, (FB). After arguments were closed, Sri Shamsunder has filed a memo to the effect that in W.P. Nos 633 and 642 of 1962 in which orders were pronounced recently another Division Bench of this Court has expressed the view that the absence of non-official members in the constitution of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in AIR SC 397, has stated as follows in para 45 at p. 412 :-- There is moreover another feature which is common to both these groups and it is that none of the petitioners raised any objection to their cases being transferred in the manner stated above and in fact submitted to the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officers to whom their cases had been transferred. It was only after our decision in Bidi Supply Co., v. Union of India, ((S) [1956]29ITR717(SC) , was pronounced on the 20th March 1956, than these petitioners woke up and asserted their alleged rights, the Amritsar group on 20th April 1956, and the Raichur group on 5th November 1956. If they acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officers to whom their cases were transferred, they were certainly not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32. It is well settled that such conduct of the petitioners would dientitle them to any relief at the hands of this Court (Vide Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. II, 3rd Ed., p. 140, para 265; Rex v. Tabrum : Ex Parte Dash, ` O.A.O.K. Lakshamanan Chettiar v. Corporation of Madras ILR 50 Mad 130 : AIR 1927 Mad 130. In Civil Petn. No. 400 of 1961 (Mys) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
