Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
BISAKHA RANI GHOSE - Appellant
Versus
SATISH CHANDRA ROY SINGHA - Respondent
Matter 167 Of 1954
Decided On : MARCH 10, 1955
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 47(1)(E) - GRANT OF PERMIT - CONSIDERATION OF UNREMUNERATIVE SERVICES - MANDATORY - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - REFUSAL OF PERMIT - APPEAL - COMPETENCY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a state carriage permit holder, applied for a permanent permit on the Berhampore Kharimpore route via Jalangi. The R.T.A. granted the permit to another applicant, respondent No. 14. Petitioner appealed to the S.T.A., which allowed the appeal and directed the R.T.A. to grant a permit to the petitioner. Respondent No. 14 appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the order of the S.T.A. and directed the R.T.A. to hold the selection afresh. Petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal by way of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the S.T.A. had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as the petitioner's application had not been refused by the R.T.A. The court also held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that there was no evidence before the R.T.A. to support the petitioner's claim for a permit under Section 47(1)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court further held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in not considering the provisions of Section 47(1)(e) of the Act, which mandates the R.T.A. to consider the provisions of the said section while dealing with applications for permits.
Issues: 1. Whether the S.T.A. had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Whether there was evidence before the R.T.A. to support the petitioner's claim for a permit under Section 47(1)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in not considering the provisions of Section 47(1)(e) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the S.T.A. had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner, as the petitioner's application had been refused by the R.T.A. by implication, since only one permit was available and it was granted to another applicant. 2. The court held that there was evidence before the R.T.A. to support the petitioner's claim for a permit under Section 47(1)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as the petitioner had been running unremunerative services along with remunerative services. 3. The court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in not considering the provisions of Section 47(1)(e) of the Act, which mandates the R.T.A. to consider the provisions of the said section while dealing with applications for permits.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal and directed the matter to be remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows:
( 2 ) THE petitioner had a permit for plying a state carriage between Berhampore and Khagra Bazar, Murshidabad in 1950. That route was found unremunerative. In the same year she was also granted a temporary permit for the route between Ghantala Ghat and Radha Ghat which was also found unremunerative. In June, 1952, a temporary permit was granted to the petitioner in the Berhampore Jalangi route and it was an express term of the grant that the petitioner should also run her bus in the town service which was unremunerative. In May, 1953, the R. T. A. , Murshidabad invited applications for one permanent permit on the Berhampore Kharimpore route via Jalangi. The petitioner made an application and the respondent No. 14 also made an application and there were other applicants. A Sub-committee was appointed to go into the matter and it appears that a report was made. That report is not before me, nor has it been disclosed to the petitioner. On 15-2-1954, the Regional Transport Authority, Murshidabad resolved that the permanent route should be granted to the respondent No. 14, Sri Meghendra Narayan Singha. So far as the order is concerned nothing is said about other applicants. Against this order, the petitioner appealed to the State Transport Authority, West Bengal. It was pointed out in the petition that the petitioner had been carrying on a remunerative service together with an unremunerative service and was actually running a temporary service in what was practically the same route in respect of which a permit was about to be granted. The State Transport Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the R. T. A. , Murshidabad mainly on the ground that the R. T. A. had failed to consider the provisions of Section 47 (1) (e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and looked at from that point of view, the petitioner had a better claim to the grant of the permit than Meghendra Narayan Singha. The S. T. A. directed the R. T. A. to grant a permit to the petitioner. Against this order, the respondent 'meghendra Narayan Singha appealed to the Appellate Tribunal which consists of three members including Dr A. D. Mukherjee. The Appellate Tribunal went into the matter and allowed the appeal of the respondent Meghendra Narayan Singha. The first ground was that the S. T. A. had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the application of the petitioner had not been refused by the R. T. A. and as such there was no right of appeal under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Secondly, it is stated that the records did not show that the petitioner had ever complained of her unremunerative services either in the town or elsewhere, nor was there any inspection by the R. T. A. to find out the truth thereof, and in the absence of any such evidence it was difficult to give relief under Section 47 (e ). The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Sub-Committee of the S. T. A. and of the R. T. A. and directed that the R. T. A. would hold the selection afresh and issue orders according to the provisions of the Act. This Rule was issued on 21-12-1954 upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not issue quashing the order of the Appellate Tribunal, and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the respondents not to give effect to the said order on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dutt has taken three points. The first point is that at the hearing of the Appellate Tribunal, one of the members Dr. A. D. Mukherjee was not present. It appears from the copy of the Minutes annexed to the petition that the Minutes start by saying that Dr. A. D. Mukherjee, State Minister (Medical) was present at the hearing on 20-8-1954. The Minutes have been signed at the bottom by all the three members, and as appears from the annexure to the petition, it is signed by Dr. Mukherjee on the 12th October, by Mr. Dhur on the 8th November. The signature o
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
