SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(SC) 407

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
Delhi Transport Undertaking, Appellant
Versus
Zamindar Motor Transport Co. (P) and another, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1324 of 1966, D/- 8-10-1969.

For the Appellant :Kapil Puri and A. Cheshti, Advocates
For the Respondents:B.A. Bashir, Sr. Advocate and Farah Bashir, Advocate

Headnote:

Delhi Transport Authority Act, 1950 - Section 3 - Municipal Act - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 57 (8) and 45 - Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules - Rule 47 - Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 288 and 289 - Transport Authority - Carriage Permission - Route - Extension of its permits - Respondent Company held in 1960 permits on three routes - Since May 9, 1956, Delhi Transport Authority and its successor D. T. U. were holding stage carriage permits valid for certain areas but not including the routes on which respondent Company held permits to ply its stage carriages. letter to Secretary State Transport Authority stating that it considered "it necessary to approach with request to place matter before State Transport Authority xx to validate" its road permits to cover entire Union Territory of Delhi - Held, Sections 288 and 289 of Act, 1957 on which reliance was placed by Mr. Daphtary do not authorise Corporation, without recourse to Motor Vehicles Authorities, to ply its vehicles over entire Union Territory of Delhi. Section 288 merely authorises the Corporation to take steps from time to time for providing or securing or promoting an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated system of road transport services; it does not dispense with compliance with provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - D. T. U. was conscious of these requirements of Motor Vehicles Act and had moved by an informal letter State Transport Authority on October 19, 1959 for extension of its permits. But thereafter even without obtaining the concurrence of State Transport Authority or its approval proceeded to start services on overlapping routes - Order passed by State Transport Authority was without jurisdiction and must be set aside - Appeal dismissed.

Judgement

SHAH, J.:- The Delhi Municipal Corporation took over the organisation of the Delhi Transport Authority established under Section 3 of the Delhi Transport Authority Act 13 of 1950, and administered it in the name of Delhi Transport Undertaking - hereinafter called D. T. U. Even though the jurisdiction of the Delhi Municipal Corporation extends only to the municipal area, by Section 288 of the Act 66 of 1957 it is authorised to set up transport services for passengers and goods in the entire Union Territory of Delhi and even outside by virtue of Sections 288 and 292 of the Act.

2. The respondent Company held in 1960 permits on three routes - (1) Delhi - Bawana - Narela, (2) Delhi-Bawana-Auchandi and (3) Delhi-Bawana-Kharkhoda. Since May 9, 1956, the Delhi Transport Authority and its successor D. T. U. were holding stage carriage permits valid for certain areas but not including the routes on which the respondent Company held permits to ply its stage carriages. On October 19, 1959 the D. T. U. addressed a letter to the Secretary State Transport Authority, Delhi, stating that it considered "it necessary to approach x x with the request to place the matter before State Transport Authority xx to validate" its road permits to cover the entire Union Territory of Delhi. The State Transport Authority treated this letter as an application for validation of the existing permits so as to cover the entire area of the Union Territory of Delhi. After considering the objections filed by existing operators on the routes outside the Municipal Corporation area, the State Transport Authority passed the following order on February 10, 1960:

"The representatives of the D. T. U. point out that under the Municipal Act they were required to provide efficient and adequate services in the entire territory of Delhi and therefore the area of their permits should be altered accordingly. The authority considered the request the D. T. U. reasonable. It was decided to alter the permits and make them valid for entire territory of Delhi but they should be informed that they should not operate new services parallel to the existing services of the private operators without the approval of the State Transport Authority".

3-4. On June 17, 1961 the D. T. U. issued a circular that it was decided to operate its services on Delhi Bawana route with effect from June 19, 1961, and informed the State Transport Authority of its intention to do so. The respondent Company lodged a protest with the State Transport Authority and asked the Authority to order that the running of the proposed service be stopped, and in the meantime the procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act be complied with, and an opportunity for making representations against the proposals of the D. T. U. be afforded. On June 20, 1961 the State Transport Authority gave notice to the respondent Company that the application made by the D. T. U. for operating services between Delhi-Bawana will be considered by the State Transport Authority in its meeting to be held on June 21, 1961 at 11 a. m. On June 21, 1961 the respondent Company wrote a letter to the Secretary, State Transport Authority intimating that it was not aware of the contents of the application of the D. T. U., that the application had not been published and objections and representations had not been invited, that the "notice of hearing was very short" and that proper opportunity for filing objections should be given after due publication of the application of the D. T. U. On June 21, 1961, the State Transport Authority resolved that:

"The Delhi Transport Undertaking already held permits for Delhi territory and they can ply on any route in the territory under these permits. No fresh permits are necessary. In the meeting held on 10-5-61, the State Transport Authority, while reviewing the requirements of services on various routes, decided that the Delhi Transport Undertaking should be asked to provide service on Delhi-Bawana-Narela route and if the



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top