IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
Valsaraj S/o Velayudhan – Petitioner
Versus
Rajan S/o Ramankutty – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 37048, 37069 of 2018, O.P. (C) No. 1777 of 2018
Decided On : 06-08-2019
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Section 89- Whether a Judicial Officer not below the rank of District Judge who is exercising the jurisdiction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is a persona designata or exercising powers in the capacity of a civil court, was not an issue raised before this Court-
The judgment/order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is not a judgment/order of a civil court against which the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked, on the matters delineated for exercise of such jurisdiction. Such judgment/order has to be challenged in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Statement of facts:
Whether the judgments of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be challenged before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or whether it should be challenged in an original petition filed under Article 227, by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction. In order to decide that issue, the question that has to be considered is whether a Judicial Officer, not below the rank of a District Judge or who is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court, appointed in terms of the notification issued by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is exercising powers in the capacity of a civil court or as persona designata.
Finding of the court:
A Judicial Officer exercising the powers of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, acts as a persona designata, and not in his capacity as a pre-existing Judicial authority in the district, he being a District Judge. Therefore, the judgment/order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is not a judgment/order of a civil court against which the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked, on the matters delineated for exercise of such jurisdiction. Such judgment/order has to be challenged in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Result: Answered
ORDER :
1. The issue raised in W.P. (C) Nos. 37048 and 37069 of 2018 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in O.P. (C) No. 1777 of 2018, which is one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is whether the judgments of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be challenged before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or whether it should be challenged in an original petition filed under Article 227, by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction. In order to decide that issue, the question that has to be considered is whether a Judicial Officer, not below the rank of a District Judge or who is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court, appointed in terms of the notification issued by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is exercising powers in the capacity of a civil court or as persona designata.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions/original petition, learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondents and also the respective counsel for the party respondents.
3. In Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon the meaning of "Persona Designata" is given as follows:
“Persona Designata: Where a person is indicated in a statute or legal instrument not by name, but either by an official designation or as one of a class, a question sometimes arises whether he ceases to be the person so indicated on losing his official designation or his character as one of the class, or whether the intention was to single him out as a persona designata, that is, as an individual, the designation being merely a further description of him. Designatio personae then, in general, means simply the singling out by description of a party to a deed or contract: or a person taking thereunder such party or person being in turn called persona designata. (Ency. of the Laws of England). When difficulty is found in ascertaining whether a person takes as person a designata, the maxim "Desigrtatio unius est exclusion aftertaste expressum facit cessare tecitum" is applicable ; in other words, if one person is specified, another is excluded on the principle that what is expressed makes what is only understood to give way."
4. Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with appeals. As per sub-section (1) of Section 89, any person aggrieved by the orders enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) thereof, may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the State transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under sub-section (2), who shall, after giving such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard, give a decision thereon which shall be final. As per sub-section (2) of Section 89, the State Government shall constitute such number of Transport Appellate Tribunals as it thinks fit and each such Tribunal shall consist of a judicial officer who is not below the rank of a District Judge or who is qualified to be a judge of the High Court and it shall exercise jurisdiction within such area as may be notified by that Government. Section 90 of the Act deals with revision. Ad per Section 90, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may, on an application made to it, call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by a State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority against which no order by not against the direction so issued.
5. In exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the State Government issued S.R.O. No. 338/2018 appointing Dr. Kauser Edappagath, District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam as State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam to hear and dispose of appeals under sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in addition to the normal duties as District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in the place of Shri N. Anilkumar, with effect from the
Arbind Kumar Singh vs. Nand Kishore Prasad
Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. vs. Ramtahel Ramnand
Barham Dutt vs. Peoples' Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. AIR 1961 P&H 24
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque
J&K Cooperative Bank vs. Shams-ud-din-Bacha
Jai Singh vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
K.V.S. Ram vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Kokkanda B. Poondacha vs. K.D. Ganapathi
Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and Others
Mahendra Saree Emporium vs. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy
Moulvi Hamid Hasan Nomani vs. Banwarilal Roy
Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana
Ramesh vs. Gendalal Motilal Patni
Ryots of Garabandho vs. Zamindar of Parlakimedi
Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India
Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
Shrinivasa Reddiar vs. Krishnaswami Reddiar
Sobhana Nair K.N. vs. Shaji S.G. Nair
State of Mysore vs. P. Shankaranarayana Rao
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj
Sukhendu Bikash vs. Hare Krishna De
Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai
Umaji Keshao Meshram vs. Smt.Radhikabai
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.