Back
Karnataka High Court
VENKATASWAMI
A.P. Ravi - Appellant
Versus
Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal - Respondent
W.P. No. 4687 of 1970
Decided On : 08/28/1973
Article 227 - Stage Carriage Operator - Motor Vehicles Act (Section 57(3), Section 64(2)) - The court discussed the interpretation of the term 'person aggrieved' in the context of Section 64(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and concluded that a 'person aggrieved' must have been a party before the Tribunal authorized to hear appeals under Section 64(1) of the Act. The court also highlighted the potential for allowing non-parties to appeal under Section 64(2) to lead to anomalous situations, citing relevant case law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a stage carriage operator, challenged the rejection of his appeal by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (M.R.A.T.) against the grant of a permit to another operator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, not being a party before the Tribunal authorized to hear appeals under Section 64(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, could not be considered a 'person aggrieved' under Section 64(2) and therefore, his appeal was rightly rejected by the M.R.A.T.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as a non-party, could be considered a 'person aggrieved' under Section 64(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a 'person aggrieved' under Section 64(2) must have been a party before the Tribunal authorized to hear appeals under Section 64(1) of the Act, and allowing non-parties to appeal under Section 64(2) could lead to anomalous situations.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
ORDER :- This petition, which is really under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is by a stage carriage operator and directed against an order made by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter called the M.R.A.T.), in Appeal No. 75/70 (M. V.) dated 30-6-1970. By that order, the M.R.A.T. has rejected the appeal of the present petitioner as not competent in law.
2. The few facts may be briefly set out. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, holding a permit on the route from Mysore to Maddur. The 4th respondent herein, prayed for the grant of the permit between Mysore to Tumkur via., Mandya. The Regional Transport Authority concerned, granted the permit subject to a curtailment of the route lying between Mysore and Mandya. Before the grant of this permit, the procedure enjoined by Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), was followed, and the application for a permit had been duly published inviting objections from persons interested. The petitioner being an operator himself, did not choose to file any objections as in his view, the proposed timing did not affect him.
3. Not being satisfied with the grant, the 4th respondent appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'S.T.A.T.'). The said Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the permit after dispensing with the curtailment made by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter called the 'R.T.A.'). The said S.T.A.T. also remitted the matter to the R.T.A. concerned, with a direction that suitable timings might be assigned to the petitioner. The R.T.A. after hearing the parties assigned timings to the service of the 4th respondent. Some of the other operators who were parties before the R.T.A., preferred appeals against assignment of such timings. The 4th respondent also appealed against such assignment of timings. The S.T.A.T. modified the timings and fixed 5-15 A.M. as the time at which the 4th respondent had to leave Mysore. Aggrieved by the said order, both respondents 4 and 16 in the present petition, preferred appeals to the M.R.A.T. The timing assigned to the 4th respondent was again modified and fixed at 7.45 A.M. It is to be noted that throughout these proceedings, the petitioner herein, was not a party. He, however had filed an application to be impleaded as a party before the S.T.A.T. at some stage of the proceedings before the said authority. The said application had been rejected. Earlier to this, the petitioner had preferred writ petition No. 1877 of 1968, before this Court and the same was disposed of on 29-7-1968 by an order, whereby the matter was remanded to S.T.A.T. with a direction to consider the application for impleading filed by the petitioner among other matters. It is only after such rejection of the said application of the petitioner, that the S.T.A.T. modified the timings in favour of the 4th respondent, which was subsequently taken up in appeal before the M.R.A.T. with the aforesaid result. The said appeal came to be dismissed as incompetent. Hence this petition.
4. On behalf of the petitioner. Sri M. Gopalakrishna Shetty, the learned counsel contended that having regard to the facts of the case, particulars as to the closeness of timings assigned to the 4th respondent and himself viz. 7-45 A.M. and 8-15 A.M. respectively, it would be clear that the petitioner would be considerably prejudiced in the operation of his service beneficially, and therefore, he was a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 64(2) (Mysore Amendment) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further contended that the words 'person aggrieved' are a much wider expression than a 'party aggrieved'. So construed, the petitioner's appeal before the M.R.A.T. would be maintainable, notwithstanding the fact that he bad not objected in the first instance, in response to the publication made under Section 57(3) of the Act, and he had not been made a party to any of the proceedings in conn
AI
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
