Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
A.Annamalai - Appellant
Versus
State of Madras - Respondent
Decided On : 08-10-55
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT - GRANT OF PERMIT TO A MEMBER OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION - SCOPE OF.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a permit for a bus route. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to Chittoor Express Service, of which Neerajhakshmi Naidu became the proprietor by reason of a transfer effected by Chengalvaraya Naidu before the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that he was a new entrant. On appeal, the claim of the petitioner was dismissed on the same ground. A Revision Petition was filed to the Government of Madras and it was rejected. The petitioner filed a writ application challenging the grant of permit to Chittoor Express Service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the grant of permit to Chittoor Express Service was invalid on the ground that Chengalvaraya Naidu, who was a member of the Regional Transport Authority, participated in the meeting and granted a permit in his own favour. The court also held that the grant of permit to Neerajhakshmi Naidu was also invalid as he was a new entrant and there was no reason to choose him in preference to the petitioner. The court further held that the order of the Government confirming the decision of the Central Road Traffic Board and the Regional Transport Authority was invalid as no reasons whatsoever were stated for confirming the decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the grant of permit to Chittoor Express Service was valid? 2. Whether the grant of permit to Neerajhakshmi Naidu was valid? 3. Whether the order of the Government confirming the decision of the Central Road Traffic Board and the Regional Transport Authority was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the grant of permit to Chittoor Express Service was invalid on the ground that Chengalvaraya Naidu, who was a member of the Regional Transport Authority, participated in the meeting and granted a permit in his own favour. The court relied on the principle of natural justice that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. 2. The court held that the grant of permit to Neerajhakshmi Naidu was also invalid as he was a new entrant and there was no reason to choose him in preference to the petitioner. 3. The court held that the order of the Government confirming the decision of the Central Road Traffic Board and the Regional Transport Authority was invalid as no reasons whatsoever were stated for confirming the decision.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the permit granted to Chittoor Express Service.
( 2 ) THE petitioner however applied for a permit after applications were called for by the notification dated 29th November, 1950. When the matter came up before the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on 5th April, 1951, one permit was granted to Chittoor Express Service, of which Neerajhakshmi Naidu became the proprietor by reason of a transfer effected by Chengalvaraya Naidu before 5th april, 1951. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he was a new entrant. The permit was granted to chittoor Express Service in the following words :-"no. 7 was granted the route by this Regional Transport Authority at the last meeting. He has two buses remaining idle now on routes temporarily, one of the buses ran for six months between Madras and Chittoor and the other between Chittoor and Kalahasti for 18 months. By the cancellation of the permit he has been hard hit. He has also been applying for a route for long. Even at the last meeting of the Regional Transport Authority his claims for a route were considered but was deferred to complete the quota of three buses to others. Hence he is considered to have the best claim for a route and he is given one bus. "
( 3 ) ON appeal, the claim of the petitioner herein was dismissed on the same ground, viz; that he was a new entrant. The claim of the fourth respondent herein, i. e. , Chitoor express Service was confirmed on the ground that he had three buses and that he also operated on this route on a temporary permit. A Revision Petition was filed to the Government of Madras and it was rejected on 4th October, 1951, in the following words :- "the Government see no reason to interfere. "
( 4 ) THE petitioner herein filed the writ application on 15th September, 1952, i. e. , 11 months after the passing of the order by the Government of Madras. The petitioner contends that the permit granted to the fourth respondent Chittoor express Service is invalid on the ground (1) that Chengalvaraya Naidu who applied for the permit as the proprietor of Chittoor Express Service was one of the members of the Regional Transport Authority which granted the permit ; (ii) that if neerajhakshmi Naidu was the proprietor of Chittoor Express Service by reason of the transfer affected by Chengalvaraya Naidu, there was no valid application made by him for the issue of a permit ; (iii) that he was also a new entrant and there was no reason to choose him in preference to the petitioner herein and (iv) that the order of the Government was invalid as no reasons whatsoever were stated for confirming the decisio
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
