Back
1977 Supreme(Goa) 13
Goa High Court
TITO MENEZES, J.C.
Mucunda Narayan Mayenkar - Appellant
Versus
Amrante Vaz - Respondents
Civil Misc. Applns. Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of 1977
Decided On : 15 October 1977
R.D. Khalap, for Applicants in Civil Misc. Applns. Nos. 20 and 21 of 1977 and for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in Civil Misc. Appln. No. 22 of 1977; S. K. Kakodkar, for Respondent No. 1 in Civil Misc. Applns. Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of 1977; J, Dias Govt. Advocate, for Applicant in Civil Misc. Appln. No. 22 of 1977 and for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in Civil Misc. Applns. Nos. 20 and 21.
The interpretation of the phrase "interests of the public generally" in Section 47(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as given by the Supreme Court in Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd. v. Balaguru Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., is correct and the State Transport Authority is required to give a fair opportunity to the applicants to rebut the material appearing against them before making a decision on the issuance of permits.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 47(1)(A) - INTERPRETATION OF "INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC GENERALLY" - SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CUMBUM ROADWAYS (P) LTD. V. BALAGURU BUS SERVICE PVT. LTD. - NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Amarante Vaz and Manuel Joao Pereira, filed writ petitions challenging the permits granted to the respondents by the State Transport Authority (STA). The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the permits, remanding the case to the STA for a fresh decision on the issuance of permits. The respondents filed applications for a certificate under Article 133(1) of the Constitution, seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and also sought an interim stay of the High Court's direction to the STA to decide the matter afresh.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the interpretation of the phrase "interests of the public generally" in Section 47(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as given by the Supreme Court in Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd. v. Balaguru Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., was correct. The Court also held that the STA was required to give a fair opportunity to the applicants to rebut the material appearing against them before making a decision on the issuance of permits.
Issues: 1. Whether the interpretation of the phrase "interests of the public generally" in Section 47(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as given by the High Court, was correct. 2. Whether the STA was required to give a fair opportunity to the applicants to rebut the material appearing against them before making a decision on the issuance of permits.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court's decision in Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd. v. Balaguru Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. held that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is that the permit holder should be the one who can serve the travelling public best. This indicates that Section 47 envisages the travelling public. 2. The High Court's interpretation of the phrase "interests of the public generally" in Section 47(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd. v. Balaguru Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. 3. The High Court's direction to the STA to give a fair opportunity to the applicants to rebut the material appearing against them was in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court's decision in B. Prabhakara Rao v. Desari Panakala Rao.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and also declined to grant an interim stay of the direction to the STA to decide the matter afresh.
ORDER :- These are three applications under Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution for a certificate that the cases in Writ Petitions Nos. 143 and 144 of 1976 in this Court involve a substantial question of law of general importance and that in the opinion of this Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The applications are filed by the respondents in those two petitions.
2. The two petitions were filed by Amarante Vaz and Manuel Joao Pereira, respectively. They prayed that the permits granted to the applicants in Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 20 and 21 by the State Transport Authority, be quashed. Their petitions were allowed and the permits were quashed by the judgments and orders of this Court dated July 25, 1977. By the said orders this Court also remanded the case to the S.T.A. for deciding the question of granting the permits afresh. The applicants now desire to file an appeal to the Supreme Court against the said judgments and orders. They also pray in the present applications that pending the disposal of the appeal by the Supreme Court interim stay of the direction to the S.T.A. to decide afresh the question of issuance of permits be granted.
3. In the Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 20 and 21, the grounds on which the certificate is prayed for are mentioned in clauses (i), (ii) and (vi) of paragraph 3 of the applications.
4. The first and second grounds are that :-
"(i) that the interpretation of S. 47 (1) (a) as given by the learned Judicial Commissioner in his judgment is against the meaning of plain words used in the said section;
(ii) that while S. 47 (1) (a) in terms requires the Regional Transport Authority to take into consideration "the interest of the public generally", the learned Judicial Commissioner in his judgment has restricted the meaning of the said phrase by holding that only the interest of the travelling public along the concerned route alone is to be considered."
The question in these two grounds is that the interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "interests of the public generally" in Cl. (a) of S. 47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), given by this Court in the judgments proposed to be impugned is not correct. The applicants state that the words "public generally" should not be confined to the travelling public benefited by the operation of buses along the route regarding which the permit is granted. For the interpretation of these words this Court has not only relied on its own reasoning, but also on the reasoning adopted by various High Courts in India and of the Supreme Court. Five decisions were cited in support of that view and this Court has examined them all. In Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd. v. Balaguru Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1977 SC 1563, their Lordships observed that the scheme of "the Act" is that he who can serve the travelling public best, has to be chosen as a permit holder and this case is a clear indication that S. 47 envisages the travelling public. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court the question must be considered as settled. The only decision cited on behalf of the opposite view is the decision of a Single Judge of the Madras High Court in M. K. Padmanathan v. State of Madras, AIR 1956 Mad 349. The preponderant view is the one taken by this Court. In any event, in the opinion of this Court, there is no difficulty in
choosing the view that it has adopted. The question of law is therefore not substantial.
5. The next question which is said to be substantial is the one mentioned in ground (vi) which reads as under :-
"(vi) The learned Judge by his judgment has required the State Transport Authority, to follow principles of natural justice as laid down by him which are not called for under S. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act."
This relates to the passage of this Courts judgment whereby the S.T.A. was directed to give a fair opportunity to the applicants to rebut the material appearing against each o
