Attar Singh vs Regional Transport Authority. Agra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1978 Supreme(SC) 100

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA, N.L. UNTWALIA AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Attar Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
The Regional Transport Authority, Agra and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1871 of 1977
Decided on 8-3-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (Mr. J. P. Goyal, Advocate with him), for Appellants; Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, Sr. Advocate (Mr. R. A. Sharma, Miss Rani Arora, and Miss Meera Bali, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 3.

Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - S. 43-A – Quash of order – Circumstantial evidence – Injury – Claim of compensation - It was formally vacated after the issuance of the notification making a change in law a copious reference to which has been made - According to the appellants in spite of the fact that they had complied with the conditions imposed by the Regional Transport Authority in its order and thus had become entitled to the issuance of the permits which had already been sanctioned or granted, the said Authority did not issue permits to them - They, therefore, moved the High Court by a learned single Judge and his decision was upheld in Letters Patent Appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court - High Court thought that position in the present case is precisely the same as in the other - Bench, therefore, upheld the order of the single Judge on that account – Held, After the conclusion of the hearing in this case we had asked the parties to file papers and/or affidavits in support of their rival contentions regarding the fulfillment of the conditions imposed by the Regional Transport Authority in its order - Parties have accordingly done so. The position is not quite clear on the basis of the papers filed by the appellants - On behalf of respondents, however, an affidavit has been filed to indicate that only Sadat one of appellants in this appeal, had complied with the conditions within time or before time - Other appellants had not. It is stated in this affidavit that the order of the High Court vacating the stay order dated 20-5-1971 was received in the office of the Regional Transport Authority conditions had to be fulfilled within a month thereof. But the affidavit shows that the other appellants had filed their affidavits required to be filed by them by the Regional Transport Authority in its order dated 1-5-1973 on various dates in December, 1975 and thus the conditions were not complied with in time. We leave this matter open to be looked into by the Regional Transport Authority - For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal and direct the Regional Transport Authority to issue permits for the route in question to such of the appellants who are found to have complied with the conditions in time. Permits will not be issued to those who had failed to comply with any of the conditions in time. In regard to the period of permits to be issued in pursuance of our order, we would like to make it clear that the permits were to be issued for a period of three years only. Temporary permits seem to have been issued to the appellants or some of them from time to time in pursuance of the interim order made either by the High Court or by this Court. The total period of such temporary permits in the case of any of the appellants must be deducted and adjusted, as in the present situation of the law it would be just to do so, from the period of three years. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs in this appeal - Order accordingly Order accordingly

JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:— The facts of this appeal by special leave are very much similar and the points involved are almost identical to those in the case of Sharif Ahmad v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, (1978) 1 SCC 1. The Allahabad High Court, in the order under challeng in this appeal, has followed its earlier decision which was upset by this Court in the case aforesaid. We could have disposed of this appeal by a short order saying that it is covered by the earlier decision of this Corut, but some differences in the facts of the two cases led Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent operators to advance a strenuous argument to oppose the following of the above course. But on scrutiny, we find that there is no distinction between the two cases on the main point. For the reasons stated hereinafter there has to be made a difference in the operative portion of the order of this Court. We need not state all the facts, the entire history of the litigation, and all the points decided in the earlier case. We shall merely proceed to mention in this judgment facts which are somewhat different and enabled the respondents to endeavour to make out some points of distinction justifiably or unjustifiably.

2. The route in question is Firozabad-Etah via Pharia-Mustafabad-Phaptu. The Regional Transport Authority. Agra refused to grant permits to the appellants for plying their stage-carriages on this route by its order dated the 25th October, 1969 on the ground that a part of the route was not motorable. In appeal from the said order the Transport Appellate Authority held on the 16th of January, 1971 that it was a motorable route and directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications of the appellants on merits. Respondent No.3 - one of the existing operators filed Writ Petition No. 501 of 1971 in the High Court challenging the Appellate Order dated the 16th January 1971. In this Writ Petition, the High Court made a stay order on the 20th of May, 1971 permitting the Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications for the grant of the permits on the route and grant them, if on merits, the applications were fit to be allowed. But the permit so granted should not be issued until further orders of the High Court. Then came the insertion of Section 43-A in the Motor Vehicles Act by an amendment of the U. P. Legislature and the general direction of the Government on the 30th of March, 1972, which are all referred to in the judgment of this Court in Shariff Ahmads case, (AIR 1978 SC 209).

3. On the 1st of May, 1973 the Regional Transport Authority sanctioned or granted the permits to all the appellants by an order made in the following terms:

"Permits are sanctioned to these applicants for three years on usual conditions in public interest subject to the order of the High Court in the pending writ petition in which stay order is at present operating to the effect that although permits can be sanctioned but they will not be issued. Vehicles will have to be put up on the route and affidavits that there has been no conviction under the I. P. C. during the last five years will have to be filed in each case within one month of the receipt of the High Court order in office in case the stay order is vacated and the writ is disallowed."

The operator respondent challenged the said order of the Regional Transport Authority by filing Writ Petition No. 4158 of 1973 in the High Court. In this writ petition also an interim order of stay was made by the High Court on the 18th of July, 1973 in the following terms:-

"Until further orders, no new permit shall be issued on Firozabad-Etah via Phaphotu route in pursuance of U. P. Act No. 25 of 1972 or any notification issued thereunder. We further direct that if any permit has been granted under the Amending Act to respondents Nos. 5 to 15, it shall not be issued to them until further orders."

Writ Petition No. 4158 of 1973 was dismissed by the High Court on the 7th of Fe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document