Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.N. Wanchoo, D.M. Bhandari
Mangilal Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Appellate Tribunal of State Transport Authority - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 159 of 1954
Decided On : 12/12/1955
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT - CANCELLATION - FRAUD - MISREPRESENTATION - RIGHT TO PLY BUS - CONDITIONS - FRAUDULENT INTENT - DISHONESTY - WRIT PETITION - CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - [INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939] [CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, ARTICLE 226]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Mangilal, applied for a permit to ply a stage carriage on a particular route. His application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA). He appealed to the State Transport Authority (STA), which granted him the permit. The petitioner then applied to the RTA for a permit to ply a specific bus, but the RTA refused, stating that the bus was manufactured in 1948 and did not meet the requirement of being manufactured within three years of the date of obtaining the permit. The petitioner then applied to the Registering Authority, Jaipur, stating that the engine of his bus had gone out of order and he had replaced it with a 1950 model engine. He obtained a new registration mark and certificate of registration showing the year of manufacture as 1950. Based on this, the RTA issued a permit to the petitioner. However, a complaint was made to the RTA alleging that the petitioner had obtained the permit fraudulently by misrepresenting the year of manufacture of the bus. The RTA and STA concluded that the petitioner had obtained the permit fraudulently and canceled it under Section 60(d) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had obtained the permit by fraud and misrepresentation. It held that the petitioner had acted fraudulently in obtaining a new registration mark for his bus and that he had caused the RTA to act on a false belief by representing that he was obtaining the permit for a 1950 model bus. The court also held that the petitioner had acted dishonestly as he intended to gain an advantage for himself by obtaining a permit that had been refused to him earlier.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation. 2. Whether the RTA and STA had the authority to refuse to grant the permit for the plying of a 1948 model bus or any other model provided the bus is registered by the registering authority and has the certificate of fitness. 3. Whether the petitioner had the right to ply his bus regardless of the year of manufacture once he had been granted the permit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had obtained the permit by fraud and misrepresentation. It relied on the fact that the petitioner had altered the certificate of registration to show a different year of manufacture and had made false statements to the Registering Authority, Jaipur. 2. The court held that the RTA and STA had the authority to refuse to grant the permit for the plying of a 1948 model bus or any other model provided the bus is registered by the registering authority and has the certificate of fitness. It noted that Section 48(d) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, empowers the RTA to attach to a stage carriage permit any prescribed condition or any one or more of the conditions referred to in that section, but that the condition that the vehicle of a particular year of manufacture only shall be permitted to ply is not one of the conditions mentioned in Section 48(d). 3. The court held that the petitioner did not have the right to ply his bus regardless of the year of manufacture once he had been granted the permit. It reasoned that the RTA would not have granted the permit had it not acted on a false belief that the petitioner had a bus of the year of manufacture for which it was granting the permit. The court also noted that Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act entitles the party whose consent to an agreement has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation to treat the contract voidable at his option.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
2. The circumstances under which respondent No. 1 ordered the cancellation of the permit of the petitioner are as hereunder:-The Regional Transport Authority, Jodh-pur, published a notification in Rajasthan Raj-patra dated the 4th of October. 1952 inviting applications for permits for plying stage carriage on Makrana Parbasar-Bassi route for three years. The petitioner’s application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority and the petitioner went in appeal to respondent No. 1 which by its order dated the 4th of September, 1953, accepted the appeal of the petitioner and granted him permit for plying stage carriage on the above mentioned route. The petitioner had a bus which was registered in Nagpur District and its registered number was RJS. 131. The petitioner applied to the respondent No. a to issue the permit for plying the bus No. RJS. 131 but the respondent No. 2 refused to issue the permit to the petitioner on the ground that the certificate of registration’ of that vehicle showed that the year of manufacture of the vehicle was 1948, he could not be granted a permit for plying the bus. It presumably relies on some departmental instructions which make it incumbent on a new applicant to own and possess a vehicle which has been manufactured within three years of the date of obtaining the permit. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he made an application to the Registering Authority, Jaipur, that the engine of his vehicle RJS 131 had gone out of order and he had replaced it by another engine, which was of 1950 model. He prayed for necessary correction to be made in the registration certificate in respect of new engine. In fact he made an application for the assignment of new mark and new registration certificate. The Registration Authority, Jaipur PS-signed new registration mark RJL 3173 “to the vehicle previously registered as RJS 131 on the 21st February, 1954 and the registration certificate contained the year of manufacture of the vehicle as 1950.
Having obtained the new registration mark and the new certificate of registration from the Registering Authority, Jaipur, the petitioner again applied to respondent No 2 to issue a permit and produced the new certificate of registration before that authority. Respondent No. 2 issued a permit to the petitioner as prayed for, and the petitioner started plying the bus from the 10th of April, 1954. One Sultan Singh made a complaint to respondent No. 2, which inter alia contained, that the petitioner had no bus of the year 1950 or of a later date and he in obtaining the permit had played a fraud by producing the certificate of registration of the same bus for which permit had been refused earlier. Respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to produce the document relating to vehicle No. RJL 3173. He did not produce the same, but his statement was recorded and respondent No. 2 came to the conclusion that the act of the petitioner in obtaining the permit amounted to fraud. Under these circumstances, he recommended to respondent No. 1 that the permit issued to the petitioner be cancelled under Section 60 (d) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No. 1 ordered on the 15th of June, 1954 that the permit obtained by the petitioner be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the permit fraudulently and by misrepresenting facts.
4. Thepetitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of re
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
