Back
1976 Supreme(SC) 348
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Nemi Chand Jain, Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M. P. Gwalior and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 995 of 1976,
D/- 20-9-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Vijay Phadke, Advocate and Mr. S. Balakrishnan, Advocate, for Appellant; M/s. S. K. Mehta, S. Qamarul Hasan, K. R. Nagaraia and P. N. Puri, Advocates, for Respondents.
K.R.HASAN, K.R.NAGARAJA, P.N.PURI, S.BALAKRISHNAN, S.K.MEHTA, S.QAMARUL HASAN, VIJAY PHADKE
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 64 - Bombay Merged Territories and Areas Act, 1953 - Sections 17 (1) and 20 – Motor accident claim – Claim of compensation - Whether there is justification for argument of counsel for appellant that Tribunal disposed of appeal and set aside Regional Transport Authorities order in his favor without hearing appellant - Permit was canceled and route was notified - Fifteen persons applied for grant of permit on that route including appellant Bus Service - Regional Transport Authority granted permit to appellant by its order - Four appeals were filed against that order including appeal of Bus Service - Appeals were fixed for hearing on different dates but were disposed of by a common order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal - By that order Tribunal set aside Regional Transport Authorities order in appellants favor and granted permit to Bus Service - Appellant felt aggrieved because according to him Tribunal dismissed his appeal without giving him a hearing - Precise grievance was that when case was taken up for hearing on January parties were present but Tribunal adjourned case for final hearing on March - No one however appeared on behalf of Bus Service in its appeal on March while counsel for appellant and one other respondent were present - Tribunal did not hear those present and reserved appeal for orders along with connected appeals - One however appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of Bus Service on April – Held, Tribunal gave that hearing at back of the respondents and did not even inform them that it had done so - Tribunal followed that up by its order by which order granting permit was set aside and the permit was granted to Bus Service - Therefore taken by surprise for as has been urged by his counsel he could justifiably conclude that as appellant Bus Service did not appear on March and Tribunal did not hear respondents who were present and reserved appeal for order Tribunal was not going to make an adverse order - At any rate there can be no doubt that was condemned unheard - His grievance in that respect is justified and should be removed - Appearing for respondent has argued that Tribunal was justified in not dismissing appeal on March for non-prosecution on behalf of appellant Bus Service for according to him that was not permissible under Section 64 of Motor Vehicles Act - Reference in this connection has been made and to decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court - Court do not think it necessary to examine correctness of legal proposition advanced but even if it were assumed that appeal could not be dismissed for want of prosecution on March it was not for reasons already stated permissible for Tribunal to allow to appear before it on April and to make his submissions at back of respondents - So also it was not permissible for Tribunal to give a decision adverse to respondents on merits on basis of grounds which had been urged in memorandum of appeal and to condemn respondent without informing him of developments which had taken place on April and without giving him a hearing - Decision in case which was followed in turned on provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 20 of Bombay Merged Territories and Areas Act, 1953 were quite different and are not directly in point - Appeal allowed
Judgment
SHINGHAL, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated January 3, 1975 in appellant Nemi Chand Jains Miscellaneous Petition No. 394 of 1974.
2. M/s. Sheikh Rasool Transport Co. held a stage carriage permit for one daily return trip on Jabalpur Mandla via Barela-Niwas route. The permit was canceled and the route was notified. Fifteen persons applied for grant of permit on that route including the appellant and Khuwaja Garib Nawaz Bus Service. Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, granted the permit to the appellant by its order dated September 8, 1972. Four appeals were filed against that order, including appeal No. 320 of 1972 of Khuwaja Garib Nawaz Bus Service. The appeals were fixed for hearing on different dates, but were disposed of by a common order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated April 29, 1974. By that order the Tribunal set aside the Regional Transport Authoritys order in the appellants favour and granted the permit to Khawaja Garib Nawaz Bus Service. The appellant felt aggrieved because, according to him, the Tribunal dismissed his appeal without giving him a hearing. The precise grievance was that when the case was taken up for hearing on January 11, 1974, the parties were present, but the Tribunal adjourned the case for final hearing on March 11, 1974 at Gwalior. No one however appeared on behalf of Khawaja Garib Nawaz Bus Service in its appeal No. 320 of 1972, on March 11, 1974, while counsel for appellant Nemi Chand and one other respondent were present. The Tribunal did not hear those present and reserved the appeal for orders along with the connected appeals. One Trivedi however appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of Khwaja Garib Nawaz Bus Service on April 10, 1974. The Tribunals order sheet of that date recorded that Shri Trivedi Stated before the Tribunal that he could not attend on the last date due to unavoidable reasons and that his appeal may be considered on merits as urged in the memorandum of appeal. The Tribunal thereafter passed the aforesaid order dated April 29, 1974 by which it set aside the Regional Transport Authoritys order in favour of appellant Nemi Chand and granted the permit to Khwaja Garib Nawaz Bus Service. The appellant thereupon filed the aforesaid Miscellaneous Write Petition No. 394 of 1974. Two other unsuccessful applicants did the same, but we are not concerned with them. As the High Court has dismissed the appellants writ petition by its impugned order dated January 3, 1975, Nemi Chand has filed the present appeal.
3. The short question for consideration is whether there is justification for the argument of the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal disposed of the appeal and set aside the Regional Transport Authoritys order in his favour without hearing the appellant.
4. It is not disputed before us, and is in fact quite clear from the notes of the proceedings of the Tribunal, that when appeal No. 320 of 1972 of Khwaja Garib Nawaz Bus Service was taken up for hearing by the Tribunal on March 11, 1974, no one was present on behalf of Khwaja Garib Nawaz Bus Service which was the appellant. The counsel for respondent Nemi Chand, who is the present appellant, was present, but the Tribunal did not hear any one and simply reserved the case for order along with the connected appeals. There is therefore justification for the argument of the counsel for appellant Nemi Chand that he remained under the impression that the Tribunal did not think it necessary to hear the arguments of the respondents as it had made up its mind not to make an order against them and to dismiss the appeal. It will be recalled that the Tribunal simply recorded an order on March 11, 1974 reserving the case for decision along with the other appeals. There could therefore be no question of allowing the appellant to appear thereafter, without notice to the respondents, and at their back. The Tribunal however allowed Shri Trived
