Judges : M.A.ANSARI,M.MADHAVAN NAIR
VYPEEN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD.AND OTHERS - Appellant
Versus
STATE, TRICHUR AND OTHERS - Respondent
Case No : 0. P. No. 447, 458, 581, 654, 658, 754, 755, 777, 798 of 1959
Decided On : 08/12/1960
Advocates Appeared :
T. S. Venkiteswara Iyer; K. S. Sebastian; K. K. Mathew; Thomas Attipetty; P. A. Mohamed; P. Govindan Nair; P. K. Kurien; G. Balagangadharan Nair; K. Sukumaran; V. K. K. Menon; C. S. Padmanabha Iyer; V. G. Bhaskaran Nair; K. Neelakanta Menon; K. P. Abraham; E. M. Jacob; K. K. Poulose; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For State T. N. Subramania Iyer; S. Narayanan Potti; E. V. Abraham; P. N. Sankaranaraya Pillai; M. Raman Menon; P. Balakrishnan; C. M. Ramachandra Menon; T. S. Venkiteswara Iyer; R. C. Plappilly; K. S. Sebastian; For Respondents
Motor Vehicles Act - Grant of Stage Carriage Permits - S.47, S.60, R.175 - The court quashed the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Trichur, finding it vitiated by gross errors apparent on the face of the record. The court discussed the interests of the public, operational facilities, financial capacity, and ownership of the vehicle as key legal provisions influencing the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Regional Transport Authority invited applications for additional stage carriage permits on a route due to inadequate passenger traffic. Several appeals were filed against the grant of permits, leading to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal's order. The existing and past operators were disqualified based on a list of convictions provided by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vitiated by gross errors apparent on the face of the record. It held that the tribunal's decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations and failed to consider the interests of the public, operational facilities, financial capacity, and ownership of the vehicle as required by the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: The issues included the disqualification of existing and past operators based on a list of convictions, the consideration of operational facilities and financial capacity, and the relevance of the interests of the public in granting stage carriage permits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the interests of the public, operational facilities, financial capacity, and ownership of the vehicle are crucial factors to be considered in granting stage carriage permits. It held that the tribunal's reliance on irrelevant considerations and failure to consider these key factors amounted to gross errors apparent on the face of the record.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and directed it to pass a fresh order in the Motor Vehicles Act appeals concerned.
1. These Original Petitions are to cull up to the High Court the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Trichur dated 2 41959, passed in Motor Vehicles Act Appeals Nos. 24 to 28, 31, 32, 38, and 43 of 1959 to be quashed by an order under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution on the ground that the said order is vitiated by gross errors apparent on the face of the record.
2. There is an island near the Cochin Harbour, by name Vypin,15 miles in length and 1J miles in breadth which is very thickly populated. Stage carriage coaches are plying through the entire length of this island from Vypin to Pallipuram. There are six buses running regular services on this route, but they are found inadequate to meet the pressure of passenger traffic therein-Accordingly, the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the R. T. A.) by a notification dated 11-8-1958 invited applications for the grant of permits for putting four additional stage carriages on the above-said route. 86 applications came forth from 85 applicants including the six existing operators on the route. They were duly published under S.57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Representations against one another's application were then filed. There was a public hearing as contemplated in S.57 (5) of the Act. And, then, the R. T. A. by its order dated 30-11-1958 granted one permit each to applicants Nos 23, 48, 64 and 77. (It is convenient to refer to these applicants by the order of their applications as was done by the Transport Authorities). Against that order several appeals were preferred before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as S. T. A. T.), and they were all disposed of by one order dated 2-4-1959. The S T. A. T. confirmed the grant of permits to applicants Nos. 48 and 64, but set aside the grant of permits to applicants Nos. 23 and 77, and in their stead granted one permit each to applicants Nos: 4 and 31. The nine Original Petitions before us were filed by applicants Nos. 1,2,3,5, 17, 23, 30, 50 and 77, seeking to have the order of the S. T. A. T. quashed by a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ on the ground that the said order is based on considerations which are not germane to the issue according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the order is vitiated by gross errors apparent on the face of the record.
3. The six existing operators running stage carriages on the route are applicants Nos.1 to 5 and 17. Two other applicants, namely, Nos. 30 and 31 were running buses on the same route sometime ago. With
regard to the services operated by these 8 applicants, the Police at Nharakkal have given the R. T. A. a list of convictions for over-loading, irregular running and non-maintenance of trip sheets in the buses. That list was appended to the order of the R. T. A.; and on its basis the R. T. A. rejected their applications with the following observations:
"Compared to the rest of the applicants the existing operators in the route, no doubt, stand on a favourable footing in that they have got experience, workshop and residential qualifications. But this list [of convictions] would reveal a very unsatisfactory picture in regard to the
services of these applicants " [Referring to applicants No. 30 and
31] but their record of service as could be seen from the appendix [i. e. the list of convictions] has not been satisfactory Their applications are hence, rejected.'.
They granted one permit each to applicants Nos. 48 and 64 on the ground that the applicant No. 64 had experience in motor transport as he was running a bus service in this route for five years before 1937, and had mechanical knowledge, and was a resident of the island, and the applicant No. 48 was a Havildar in the Army in charge of heavy motor vehicles for over 4 years, and was himself an automobile mechanic, and a native of the island. After rejecting the applications of all the other individual applicants on the score o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.