Back
1975 Supreme(SC) 295
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N.Ray : K.K.Mathew : Y.V.Chandrachud
Ishwru Yatayat Co-operative Society
Versus
State Transport Appellate Authority
Case No. : 758 of 1971
Date of Decision : 8/22/75
Advocates Appeared: Bhartari P.C. : Kohli Lalita : Lal Naunit : Nariman F.S. : Phadke M.N.
F.S.NARIMAN, LALITA KOHLI, M.N.Phadke, NAUNIT LAL, P.C.BHARTARI
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 46 - Stage Carriage - Grant of Permit - Regional Transport Authority, by a notification invited applications for two single trip permits for running stage carriage - Appellant submitted an application for grant of permit on Nagda-Indore route and M/s. Jawahar Yatayat Co-operative Society submitted its application for Indore-Nagda route - One Smt. Akhtari Begum, now represented by respondent No. 3, submitted two applications, one for grant of permit on Nagda-Indore route and other for a permit on Indore-Nagda route - Jaiswal Transport Co-operative Society and a few others also applied for permits - Whether view taken by High court that application for permit was not maintainable - Whether an application for grant of permit could be filed on behalf of a company before it was incorporated – Held, Fact that appellant was registered as a cooperative society before date on which Regional Transport Authority considered applications for permits is also of no consequence as there was no valid application before Regional Transport Authority - When an application for permit is filed by a person, it has to be published and objections invited - Objectors are free to file representations against grant of permit to applicant - High court had to consider question whether an application for grant of permit could be filed on behalf of a company before it was incorporated - Court held that application was incompetent - Azad Hind Motor Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. v. State Transport Appellate Authority held by High court that until a co-operative society is registered, it has no juristic personality and so an application for grant of permit made by a person purporting to be on its behalf was not maintainable – Court think that, in principle, it stands to reason to hold that since appellant was not a registered cooperative society on date of application for grant of permit, there was no person in eye of law who could file a valid application under S. 46 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of a permit - High court was right in its view that application for grant of permit to appellant was not maintainable and in dismissing writ petition - Appeal dismissed.
K.K.MATHEW, J.
(1) THIS is an appeal, by special leave, from the judgment of the High court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur holding that the appellant was not entitled to the permit in question for the reason that the application for grant of permit was not maintainable in law.
(2) THE Regional Transport Authority, Indore, by a notification dated 23/10/1959 invited applications for two single trip permits for running stage carriage on Nagda-Indore and Indore-Nagda routes via Hingoria, Gautampura and Depalpur. The appellant submitted an application for grant of permit on the Nagda-Indore route on 11/11/1959 and M/s. Jawahar Yatayat Co-operative Society submitted its application on 20/11/1959 for Indore-Nagda route. One Smt. Akhtari Begum, now represented by respondent No. 3, submitted two applications, one for grant of permit on the Nagda-Indore route and the other for a permit on the Indore-Nagda route. One Jaiswal Transport Co-operative Society and a few others also applied for permits.
(3) THE Regional Transport Authority by its order dated 27/02/1961 granted two permits: one to the appellant and the other to M/s. Jawahar Yatayat Co-operative Society and rejected the other applications. Smt. Akhtari Begum, Jaiswal Transport Cooperative Society and two others filed separate appeals before the State Transport Appellate Authority (hereinafter called Appellate Authority). The appellate authority by its order dated 25/09/1962 maintained the order of the Regional Transport Authority and dismissed the appeals.
(4) SMT. Akhtari Begum and Jaiswal Transport Cooperative Society challenged the validity of the order in Writ Petition before the High court. The High court quashed the order of the appellate authority and remanded the case for fresh disposal by that authority. Thereafter the appeals filed by Smt. Akhtari Begum and Jaiswal Transport Cooperative Society were heard, and the appellate authority by its order dated 7/08/1964 again dismissed the appeals and thus maintained the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority granting permits in favour of the appellant and M/s. Jawahar Yatayat Co-operative Society.
(5) SMT. Akhtari Begum and M/s. Jaiswal Transport Cooperative Society again filed separate Writ Petition before the High court challenging the order of the appellate authority. The High court allowed the Writ Petition and remanded the cases to the appellate authority for deciding both the appeals afresh. The appellate authority, by its order dated 31/01/1968 allowed the appeal filed by Smt. Akhtari Begum and set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting permits in favour of the appellant and M/s. Jawahar Yatayat Cooperative Society. Both the permits were ordered to be granted to Smt. Akhtari Begum.
(6) THE reasoning of the appellate authority was that the applications of the appellant and M/s. Jaiswal Transport Cooperative Society were invalid as they were not registered as cooperative societies on the date on which the applications for permits were made to the Regional Transport Authority and so the applications were not maintainable in law. Two Writ Petition were filed before the .High court by the appellant as well as by M/s. Jawahar Yatayat Cooperative Society challenging the order. The High court agreed with the conclusion of the appellate authority that the applications for grant of permits filed by the writ petitioners were not maintainable and dismissed the Writ Petition by a common order.
(7) THE only question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the view taken by the High court that the application for permit was not maintainable as the appellant was not a registered cooperative society when the application was made, even though it was registered at the time when the applications were considered and disposed of by the Regional Transport Authority, was correct.
(8) IT is no doubt true that in both the Writ Pe
