Back
1970 Supreme(Cal) 36
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
KALI KINKAR KUNDU - Appellant
Versus
SADHAN CHANDRA DEY - Respondent
Appeal 529 Of 1968
Decided On : FEBRUARY 18, 1970
KALYANMAY GANGULY, SANKARDAS BANERJI, Smriti Kumar Roy Chaudhury, Sudhangsu Bhusan Sen, SUSHIL KUMAR BANERJEE
A Transport Authority is not competent to grant a licence in the name of a Company which is not registered.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - S. 47 - BENGAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1940 - R. 53(d) - GRANT OF STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT - REJECTION OF APPLICATION - GROUNDS - RELEVANCY - IRREGULARITY IN PROCEEDINGS - APPLICATION MADE IN NAME OF NON-EXISTING COMPANY - VALIDITY - LEGAL INTEREST OF PETITIONERS - WRIT PETITION UNDER ART. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Kali Kinkar Kundu, was granted a stage carriage permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Bankura, on the route from Bankura to Durgapore Railway Station via Beliatore. The petitioners, who had jointly applied for the same permit, challenged the decision of the Regional Transport Authority by filing a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed that they were desirous of forming a limited company for the purpose of carrying on a transport business under the name and style M/s. S. C. Dey and Co. (P.) Ltd. and that the application was made in the name of the said Company, though it was not registered at the time of the application.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Regional Transport Authority did not err in rejecting the petitioners' application on the ground that the applicant Company had no experience in passenger transport business. The Court also held that there was no irregularity in the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority as the quorum requirement was met and that the application made in the name of a non-existing Company was not a valid application. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners had no legal interest in the matter and that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the Regional Transport Authority erred in rejecting the petitioners' application on the ground that the applicant Company had no experience in passenger transport business? 2. Whether there was any irregularity in the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority? 3. Whether the application made in the name of a non-existing Company was a valid application? 4. Whether the petitioners had any legal interest in the matter? 5. Whether the writ petition was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Motor Vehicles Inspector was under an obligation to consider whether a particular applicant had any experience of transport business. Even in the case of a Company or a corporate body, it is his duty to give a report whether the Company or the corporate body had any such experience. 2. Under Rule 53 (d) of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, the Regional Transport Authority was properly constituted so long as it had a quorum. The fact that the proceedings were signed by two members on one date and by the third member on another date did not constitute an irregularity. 3. A Transport Authority is not competent to grant a licence in the name of a Company which is not registered. 4. The petitioners, who had made an application in the name of a non-existing Company, did not have any legal interest in the matter. 5. The writ petition was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment and order of the lower court was set aside. The Rule was discharged and the application of the petitioners was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS Is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25th July. 1968 of A. K. Sinha, J. by which his Lordship issued a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash a resolution made by the Regional Transport Authority, Bankura, on 27th September, 1965.
( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are as follows: The appellant made an application for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route from Bankura to Durgapore Railway Station via Beliatore. Sadhan Chandra Dey, Sunil Kumar Banerjee, Lakshmi Rani Dey, Bhola Nath Banerjee and Kalipada Dey, who are the petitioners in the application under Art. 226 of the Constitution, claimed to have jointly applied for the same permit. They say that they were desirous of forming a limited company for the purpose of carrying on a transport business under the name and style M/s. S. C. Dey and Co. (P.) Ltd. The application was made actually under the name and style of M/s. S. C. Dey and Co. (P.) Ltd. In the application, the names of the petitioners were given as "partners" of the said Company. At page 34 of the paperbook, there is a copy of the verification roll which had been filed by the petitioners before the Regional Transport Authority, Bankura, in connection with their application. At the end of the verification roll there is a certificate by the Motor Vehicles Inspector (Non-Technical), Enforcement, Bankura to the following effect:--"verified. It is an unregistered Company. Shri Sadhan Ch. Dey, one of the partners, has passenger transport business experience (certificate enclosed ). Krishna Trading Company, Bankura will finance the Company to purchase a new bus (certificate enclosed ). Shri Sunil Kumar Banerjee, one of the partners possesses Medium Motor Vehicles driving licence. The company does not pay Income-tax. Other points appear to be true. Garage will be inspected later on if the Company gets the route. "the Regional Transport Authority, Bankura, considered all the applications for, the permanent stage carriage permit in the aforementioned route at meetings held on 27-9-65 and 29-9-65. The minutes of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority in connection with the applications which had been filed have been annexed to the petition and are to be found at pages 11 to 13 of the paperbook. It appears that after hearing all the applications and all objections relating thereto, the Regional Transport Authority decided that the stage carriage permit in question would be granted to one Kail Kinkar Kundu. The petitioners, therefore, made an application in this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid decision of the Regional Transport Authority. After affidavits had been filed by all parties, Sinha J. heard the application and quashed the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. Kali Kinkar Kundu who had received the permit under the decision of the Regional Transport Authority has now come up on appeal against that order of Sinha, J.
( 3 ) AS far as we can ascertain from the judgment of Sinha J. the main contention of the petitioners before his Lordship was that the Regional Transport Authority had contravened the principles of natural justice in so far as only two members took the final decision without consulting the third member, though the petitioners were heard really by three members. Though Sinha J. did not come to any final decision on this point, it appears from the trend of his Lordship's judgment that his Lordship perhaps thought that there was some slight irregularity in the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority. His Lordship, however, did not like to dispose of the matter on this point. His Lordship preferred to dispose of the application on another short point. Sinha J. analysed the verification report submitted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and came to the conclusion on the basis of that report that the Regional Transport Authority did not actually apply its mind to the petitioners' case at all. A
