Nasiruddin: Ramai vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal: State Of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1975 Supreme(SC) 316

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., K.K. MATHEW, V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND S. MURTAZA FAZL ALI, JJ.
(1) In Civil Appeals Nos. 1940-41 of 1972: Nasiruddin, Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Respondent, and
Civil Appeals Nos. 1940-41 of 1972 and Criminal Appeal No.254 of 1974
Decided on 29-8-1975.

Advocates:
B.C.SAXENA, C.P.LAL, D.MUKHERJI, F.S.NARIMAN, G.L.VERMA, G.N.VARMA, H.D.SRIVASTAVA, HARI NATH TIVARI, M.N.SHROFF, N.N.SHARMA, O.K.TRIVEDI, O.P.RANA, R.M.SHARMA, R.N.SHARMA, R.N.TRIVEDI, R.P.Singh, R.P.SINGH PAL, S.BAGGA, S.K.Bagga, S.K.S.BAGGAR, S.M.Jain, S.P.SINGH, SARJU PRASAD, YOGESHAR PRASAD

Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 - Section 9 - Criminal Procedure Code - Writ of certiorari for quashing order - Appeal against order - Writ Petition - Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly fixed the strength of Chandausi Rajghat route at 5 stage carriage permits. The appellant and the respondent No.3 applied for the grant of permits - Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, by order instead of granting five permits, increased the strength of the route to 15 permits and granted one permit each to the appellant, the respondent No.3 and 13 others - Permit granted to the appellant was valid - Unsuccessful appellants filed appeals against the order. By an order, State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed all nine appeals and remanded the matter to Regional Transport Authority for reconsideration - Regional Transport Authority by an order granted five permits, one of which was granted to the respondent No.1. Appellant was not granted a permit – Held, interpretation given by the High Court that the word "heard" confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be instituted or filed at Allahabad instead of Lucknow is wrong - Word "heard" means that cases which have already been instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order be directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression "cause of action" with regard to a civil matter means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad Bench according to the cause of action arising wholly or in part within either of the areas. If the cause of action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified Oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad. Fifth, a criminal case arises where the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in Criminal Procedure Code - That will attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or Lucknow. In some cases depending on the facts and the provision regarding jurisdiction, it may arise in either place - Order accordingly.

JUDGMENT

RAY, C. J. :— Two of these appeals are by special leave and one by certificate from the judgment dated 17 December, 1971 of the Full Bench of the High Court at Allahabad.

2. Civil Appeal No. 1940 of 1972 arises out of the Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970. Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970 was filed before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court by respondents Nos. 3 to 9 for quashing the order dated 12 May, 1970 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow. The respondents also claimed the direction that the judgment of the High Court sitting at Lucknow dated 15 September, 1966 in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964 is a nullity.

3. The facts in Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970 are these. The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly fixed the strength of Chandausi Rajghat route at 5 stage carriage permits. The appellant and the respondent No.3 applied for the grant of permits. The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, by order dated 2 October, 1961 instead of granting five permits, increased the strength of the route to 15 permits and granted one permit each to the appellant, the respondent No.3 and 13 others. The permit granted to the appellant was valid from 9 June, 1961 to 8 June, 1964.

4. The unsuccessful appellants filed appeals against the order. By an order dated 28 March, 1963, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow allowed all the nine appeals and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, for reconsideration. The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, by an order dated 28th April, 1964 granted five permits, one of which was granted to the respondent No.1. The appellant was not granted a permit.

5. The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly had, in the meanwhile, on 20 February, 1963, increased the strength of the routes from 5 to 15 and invited applications. Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 7 applied for the grant of permits.

6. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964 before the Judges of the High Court sitting at Lucknow, challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 28 March, 1963 as well as the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly dated 28 April, 1964. On 9 June, 1966 the appellant succeeded in his Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964. The orders of the Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 28 March, 1963 and the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, dated 28 April, 1964 were quashed and the Appellate Tribunal was directed to re-hear the appeals on merits. 334

7. On 1 November, 1965, the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, rejected the application of the appellant for the renewal of his permit on the ground that the permit granted to him originally was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 28 March, 1963. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and succeeded on 8 January, 1968. On 17 June, 1968, the Appellate Tribunal, in pursuance of the orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964, issued notice to the 15 persons, who had been granted permits originally and the 9 persons, who had preferred appeals, regarding re-hearing of the appeals. Against the said order, the respondent No.3 filed Writ Petition No. 4213 of 1968 in the High Court at Allahabad. The writ petition was admitted and a stay order was granted. However, on 25 April, 1968, the stay order was vacated.

8. The Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow, pursuant to the orders in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964, heard the appeals and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly to grant one permanent stage carriage permit to each of the respondents Nos. 10 to 12. Inasmuch as the appellant was granted a permit in pursuance of the order in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964, the Appellate Tribunal did not think it necessary to pass an order in his case.

9. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 filed Writ Petition No.3294 of 1970 in the High Court at Allahabad. One of the grounds in the writ petition was that the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document