SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Kar) 26

Karnataka High Court
CENTRAL KARNATAKA MOTOR SERVICES LTD., SHIMOGA TOWN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MYSORE - Respondent
Decided On : 07-13-56
Writ Petition : 96 of 1956

Advocates:
A.N.Anantharamaiya, D.M.CHANDRASEKHAR, K.S.PUTTASWAMY

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of appeal must be conferred by statute and cannot be claimed without a provision therefor.

Headnote:

JURISDICTION - Indian Motor Vehicles Act - The court considered whether the government had jurisdiction to interfere with an appellate order passed by the state Transport Authority under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that the rule allowing for a second appeal to the government was invalid as it was repugnant to the Act and lacked jurisdiction.

Fact of the Case:

The Regional Transport Authority prescribed the time for bus departures, which was changed in favor of the petitioner in an appeal to the State Transport Authority. The 2nd respondent approached the Government for modification, and the order of the State Transport Authority was varied. The petitioner sought to quash the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rule allowing for a second appeal to the government was invalid as it was repugnant to the Act and lacked jurisdiction. The order passed by the Government was declared not legal.

Issues: The main issue was whether the government had jurisdiction to interfere with the appellate order passed by the State Transport Authority under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rule permitting a second appeal to the government was invalid as it was repugnant to the Act and lacked jurisdiction. It emphasized that the right of appeal must be conferred by statute and cannot be claimed without a provision therefor.

Final Decision: The court declared the order passed by the Government as lacking jurisdiction and not legal, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.

VENKATARAMAIYA, CJ.

( 1 ) THE question raised in this case is whether Government had jurisdiction to interfere with an appellate order passed by the state Transport Authority under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. Petitioner and respondent 2 are plying buses between certain places in Mysore. The Regional Transport Authority prescribed the time at which the bus of each had to start. This was changed perhaps to the advantage of the petitioner in the appeal preferred by him to the State Transport Authority. The 2nd respondent thereupon approached Government for modification of this and the order of the State Transport Authority was varied. Petitioner contends that it is illegal and wants the order to be quashed in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) IT is admitted that the order cannot be assailed according to the rules framed by Government as Rule 276-A expressly provides for an appeal to it against appellate orders of State transport Authority. This rule is impugned as being repugnant to the Act and in support of it the recent amendment of the Act by virtue of which appellate orders of the State Transport Authority are expressly stated to be appealable to Government is pointed out as implying that such orders were not subject to appeal at the time Government dealt with the case between the parties.

( 3 ) THE amendment does not necessarily justify such an inference as it may have been meant to remove doubts about maintainability of second appeals to Government in the absence of any provision in the Act though there is a definite rule which permits the same. The right of appeal is to be conferred by statute and cannot be claimed without a provision therefor.

( 4 ) THE rule cannot be successfully challenged unless the presumption of validity ordinarily attaching to it is shown to be inapplicable. Section 64 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act states"any person (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport authority to grant a permit or by any condition attached to the permit granted to him. . . . . . . . . . . . may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard. "according to Section 2 (21) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under the Act. Rule 276-A no doubt makes a second appeal to Government possible but it cannot override or supplement the provisions of the Act either by taking awaw what is granted or cpnfer rights not allowed and available therein. It is well settled that the rule should not be repugnant to the Act and in case of conflict between the two the latter should prevail. It is conceded that an appeal to Government can lie, if at all, only under Section 64 and no other. The Act does not vest government with jurisdiction to revise orders made by the State transport Authority.

( 5 ) THE words in Section 64 are such as to render an order passed with respect to matters enunciated therein liable to be challenged in appeal before one authority and not to subject the appellate order to a further appeal. If the order is that of the regional Authority, it may be appealed against before the State transport Authority ; if it is that of the State Transport Authority, the Government is the appellate authority. In either case the appellate order was final. The section requires that the "original authority,'' should have "an opportunity of being heard ". Difficulty will arise if a second appeal is deemed to be possible as in such cases the question will be as to which is the original authority, and if this is considered to be the Regional Authority as the words prima facie denote it may turn out to be meaningless in some cases. A permit may be refused by the Regional Authority, his order may be set aside by the State Transport Authority and if the aggrieved person contests this and seeks restoration of the order of the Regional






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top