Back
1994 Supreme(Cal) 159
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee and Ashok Kumar Chakraborty, JJ.
State Transport Authority, West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Joydeb Samanta & Ors. – Respondents
Appeal from Original Order Tender No. 1224 of 1993
Decided On : May 5, 1994
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Dilip Seth and N.K. Khan for the Appellant
Mr. Asok De, Sanat Kumar Roy and Arun Kanti Bera for the Respondent No. 1
The High Court has the power to mould relief and grant interim relief beyond the prayer made in the writ petition, especially when the circumstances of the case warrant such relief.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTIONS 89, 68C, 68F - TEMPORARY PERMIT - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - SCOPE OF RELIEF - POWER OF COURT TO MOULD RELIEF - APPEAL AGAINST INTERIM ORDER OF HIGH COURT - STAY OF OPERATION - TEMPORARY PERMIT - DUTY OF STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - MANDAMUS - CONTEMPT OF COURT - MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1989 - RULE 119 - HIGH COURT RULES - ORIGINAL SIDE RULES, ORDER 26, RULE 11.
Fact of the Case:
The State Transport Authority (STA) appealed against an interim order of the High Court directing it to issue temporary permits to the writ petitioner/opposite party (Joydeb Samanta) on a specific route and to continue issuing such permits till the disposal of a statutory appeal before the Motor Vehicles Tribunal. The STA had earlier rejected the petitioner's application for a permanent permit, and the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner applied for a temporary permit, which was granted by the Tribunal. However, the STA failed to comply with the Tribunal's order. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which directed the STA to carry out the Tribunal's order. The STA did not challenge this order and it became final. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another writ petition seeking a direction to the STA to issue temporary permits till the disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal. The High Court allowed the petition and granted the interim relief sought by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the STA was under a statutory obligation to carry out the order of the Tribunal and that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Tribunal or the order of a single judge of the High Court directing the STA to comply with the Tribunal's order. The court also held that the High Court had the power to mould relief and that it was not confined to the prayer made before it. In the circumstances of the case, the court found that the STA was not acting properly and bonafide and that it was necessary to direct the STA to comply with the Tribunal's order.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the order of a single judge of the High Court directing the STA to comply with the Tribunal's order. 2. Whether the High Court had the power to mould relief and grant interim relief beyond the prayer made in the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Tribunal or the order of a single judge of the High Court directing the STA to comply with the Tribunal's order. 2. The High Court has the power to mould relief and grant interim relief beyond the prayer made in the writ petition, especially when the circumstances of the case warrant such relief.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the STA was dismissed with costs.
Banerjee, J.
This is an appeal filed by the appellant, State Transport Authority, West Bengal against the order dated 23rd March, 1993 passed by Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J. granting an interim order of injunction to issue temporary permit on the route in question and to go on issuing successive temporary permit which would remain valid till the disposal of the statutory appeal pending before the Motor Vehicles Tribunal constituted under the provision of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The fact of this case is that the writ petitioner/opposite party Joydeb Samanta was given successive permits by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal in the route Teropakhia to Calcutta (referred to as the said route). In a proceeding being Special Leave petition No. 8592 of 89 the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10th August, 1989 directed the writ petitioner/opposite party to apply for a permanent permit to the appellant-State Transport Authority, West Bengal. It was directed that the said State Transport Authority will consider the application for permanent permit and dispose of the same within a period of two months. Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court the application for permanent permit was submitted in the office of the State Transport Authority on 6th September, 1989. On 5th October, 1989 the State Transport Authority informed the writ petitioner/opposite party that the said application for permanent permit had been rejected. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision of the State Transport Authority, the writ petitioner/opposite party filed a statutory appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (referred to as the said Act) to the appellant State Transport Authority, West Bengal. The appeal came to be registered as State Transport Appeal No. 7 of 1990. In the said appeal, the writ petitioner/opposite party filed an application for interim stay which was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the certified copy of the resolution of the State Transport Authority rejecting the application for permit was not annexed to the said petition. The said Tribunal directed the State Transport Authority to supply the certified copy of the resolution. On 24th December, 1992 the writ petitioner/opposite party preferred an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the rejection order of the Tribunal and the said application came to be registered as C.O. No. 38 of 1991. The C.O. No. 38 of 1991 was finally heard and disposed of by N.K. Mitra, J. On 6th May, 1992 directing the State Transport Authority to deliver the certified copy of the resolution within a week from date. Liberty was given to the petitioner to apply for interim order before the said Tribunal. On 16th May, 1992 the said order dated 6th May, 1992 was served upon the State Transport Authority. But the certified copy of the resolution had not been given and/or delivered to the petitioner, inspite of the order of N.K. Mitra, J. There was no explanation as to why the same could not be complied with During the pendency of the said statutory appeal, an application for temporary permit was submitted to the State Transport in the said route. In the meantime an application for interim order was taken out by the writ petitioner/opposite party in connection with the said pending appeal before the said Tribunal. The said Tribunal upon bearing the parties directed the State Transport Authority to issue temporary permit to the writ petitioner/opposite party and further directed that the permit so granted will remain valid till the disposal of the appeal pending before the Tribunal. This order was passed by the Tribunal on 28th July, 1992 upon notice to the State Transport Authority. The said order dated 28th July, 1992 was served upon the State Transport Authority on 31.7.92. The order of the Tribunal was not carried out by the State Transport Authority. Since, the order of the Tribunal was not carried out by the State Transport Aut
