SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5th December 1952.
PATANJALI SASTRI, C.J.I.; B.K. MUKHERJEA, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, BOSE AND GHULAM HASAN, JJ.
T. B. Ibrahim, Proprietor, Bus Stand, Tanjore, Appellant
Versus
The Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, Respondent.
Appeal No. 16 of 1952.
Advocates appeared
Shri G. R. Jagadisa Iyer, Advocate, instructed by Shri M. S. K. Sastri, Agent, for Appellant; Shri V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (Shri V. V. Raghavan, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri G. H. Rajadhyaksha, Agent, for Respondent.
-held, the question cannot be raised in case District Collector who does not act in exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial function.
-see decision in T.B. Ibrahim v. R.T.A., AIR 1953 SC 79.
Judgment
GHULAM HASAN J.: This appeal brought by special leave under Art. 136 (1) of the Constitution is directed against the order dated February 6, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dismissing the petition of the appellant under Art. 226, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated November 10, 1950, passed by the respondent in the following circumstances :-
2. The appellant is the lessee of a site to the town of Tanjore to the State of Madras upon which he has a bus-stand. The bus-stand originally belonged to the Tanjore Municipality and the appellant merely held a licence from that authority. Later on, the title of the Municipality to the site was questioned by a third party and in a civil litigation which ensued the title of the Municipality was negatived. There upon the appellant obtained the lease-hold right of the site from the true owner and constructed a bus-stand conforming to the design approved by the Municipality. Besides sheds for passengers and vehicles it provided other amenities. It was situated near the Railway Station and most of the buses leaving Tanjore for out-Station journeys used this bus-stand both as the starting port and the terminus.
It appears that the site was approved as convenient and suitable for the bus-stand both by the Municipality and the District authorities for buses plying from and into Tanjore. The appellant held the licence for running the bus stand year after year. In 1939 the Municipality granted him a licence for four months only instead of one year as required by S. 270 (c) of the Madras Municipalities Act (V of 1920), and the appellant succeeded in vindicating his right for a whole year s licence in the Civil Court by obtaining the relief for injunction and an order directing the issue of a licence against the Municipality for 1940-41. The appellant carried on the business without let or hindrance until 1950 when the Municipality refused to renew his licence, whereupon he obtained a mandatory injunction from the Civil Court directing the Municipality to grant him a licence for the year 1950-51. This decree was passed on October 7, 1950.
3. On February 21, 1950, however the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, which is the respondent in the present appeal, declared the bus-stand as unsuitable with effect from April 1, 1950, and altered the starting and the terminal points from that date. This order resulted in the closing of the appellant s bus stand. This decision which was given by means of a resolution was confirmed subsequently by another resolution passed on March 31, 1950. The appellant challenged the validity of these resolutions by a petition under Art. 226 before the Madras High Court on the ground that they were passed without jurisdiction and were contrary to the principles of natural justice as they were passed without notice to the appellant and without giving him an opportunity to defend his right. The resolutions purported to have been passed under S. 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which runs thus :
"The Provincial Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the Provincial Government may, in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned, determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stop for alonger time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers."
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice and another learned Judge quashed the two orders as prayed for the applnt. on the grounds that the orders were passed ex parte , and that S. 76 did not authorize the respondent to close the bus-stand. In the opinion of the Bench, S. 76 deals with provision for parking places and
Referred : Ebrahim Saheb v. The Regional Transport Authority Tanjore
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.