Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (In all the appeals), Appellant
Versus
Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 825 to 851 of 1968,
D/- 22-8-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India (Mr. Santosh Chatterjee, Advocate and Mr. D. P. Singh, Advocate of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co. with him), for the Appellant (In all the Appeals); M/s. M. N. Phadhke, C. G. Madkholkar and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1 (In C. As. Nos. 832, 840, 842, 844, and 847 to 851 of 1968); M/s. M. N. Phadke, M. W. Puranik and Naunit Lal, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1 (In C. As.Nos. 825 to 831 and 833 to 838 of 1968); Mr. R. V. S. Mani, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 845 of 1968). 331
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 and 227 - Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 – Section 47-A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 68-D, 46, 48, 58 (1) (a), 62, 48 (1), 48 (3) (i), 57, 47 (3), 55 (2), 50, 57 (6) , (5) - Licensing Act, 1910 – Section 25(2) - Tribunals and Inquires Act, 1958 - Section12 (3) - Road Transport Corporation - Private Stage Carriage - Permits for Routes - Whether High Court was right in taking view that order - Whether such representation is made in connection with a particular application for grant of a contract carriage permit - Whether it was necessary for Government of India to give reasons for its decision – Held, Order of justices was, however, made orally at bearing of application and had not been reduced into writing at time when motion for an order of certiorari was made - On that point Court of Appeal held that it had no power to deal with any order but an order in writing in proceedings for certiorari - Court, therefore, refused to give judgment until order was reduced into writing, but consented to hear arguments on an undertaking being given by parties that order would be duly reduced into writing and produced before Court - After Court of Appeal had heard arguments a written order was drawn up by justices and produced before Court which thereafter delivered judgment and quashed order of grant of a writ - It should be noticed that under this section, statement of reasons may be oral and any such statement "shall be taken to be a part of decision and accordingly to be incorporated in record" - Further, duty to give reasons arises only, when a request to give them is made to tribunal or to Minister - No such duty arises under this sub-section if request is made after decision has been given or notified – Court is therefore of opinion that in absence of any statutory provision there is noting wrong in principle if an administrative tribunal gives a decision orally and subsequently reduces to writing reasons thereof and communicates it to parties – Court accordingly reject argument of Mr. Phadke on this aspect of case - Appeals allowed.
Judgement
RAMASWAMI J. : These appeals are brought by certificate from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated October 20, 1967 in Special Civil Applications Nos. 540-570 to 572, 575 to 596 and 634 of 1967 filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The appellant is the State Road Transport Corporation of the State of Maharashtra constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act (64 of 1950), Respondent No. 1 who is a private stage carriage operator, along with other such private operators, had applied for renewal of stage carriage permits which they were holding and which permits were to expire on March 31, 1961. The Provincial Transport Services (the predecessor of the appellant) had been also operating the stage carriage service in the adjoining and nearby areas and had made applications sometime in January, 1961 for grant of substantive permits for the same routes. The Provincial Transport Services had published a scheme under S. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act ) under which it proposed to take over several routes in the region including the routes in respect of which renewal applications were made by the appellant and the private operators. The scheme was approved by the Chief Minister of the then Bombay State. The approval was, however, challenged by private operators in Special Civil Application No.86 of 1962 in the High Court. By its order dated 29th/30th August, 1963 passed in that case, the High Court quashed the scheme with the direction that the matter should be reconsidered by the approving authority. The scheme was thereafter not pursued.
3. By a notification dated June 10, 1961 under S. 47-A of the Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950 the Central Government provided for the amalgamation of the Bombay Road Transport Corporation with the Commercial Undertaking of the State Government, namely, the Provincial Transport Services. It was also provided in the notification that any application for permit made by the Provincial Transport services would be deemed to be an application made by the Bombay Road Transport Corporation. In other words, the Provincial Transport Services was substituted by the State Road Transport Corporation which is now known as Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the appellant ).
4. The applications for renewal of permits and applications for substantive permits were considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur (hereinafter called the R. T. A. ) on October 9 and 10, 1964 and the R. T. A. passed a common order by which all the applications for renewal made by private operators were rejected and the permits were granted to the appellant. This order of the R. T. A. was challenged by the private operators in Special Civil Application No. 603 of 1964. One of the grounds on which the order was challenge was that the R. T. A. was not validly constituted. By its order dated January 14, 1965, the High Court quashed the order passed by the R. T. A., holding that it was not properly constituted on October 13, 1964 when it passed the common order. Thereafter the applications for renewal of permits and for fresh grant of permits were again considered by the R. T. A. at its meeting held on May 10, 1965. By its order on the same date, the R. T. A. dismissed all the applications for renewal made by the private operators and directed that substantive permits for these routes should be granted to the appellant. The order of the R. T. A. dated May 10, 1965 was challenged by the private operators in different Civil Applications. One of the applications was Special Civil Application No. 488 of 1965. In this application, one of the prayer was to the effect that pending the decision of the application the R. T. A. should be directed to maintain status quo. Clause 3 of the prayer was to the following effect:
"That pending the decision of this application the R. T. A. Nagpur be directed to maintain status quo viz.,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
