Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Sarjoo Prosad,J.S.Ranawat
BADRIDASS KANHAIYALAL - Appellant
Versus
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. 337 Of 1958
Decided On : 04/27/1959
The Rajasthan High Court held that the constitution of the Appellate Authority, which passed the impugned order, suffered from serious illegality and under the law, the authority so constituted cannot be regarded as having jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Regional Transport Authority. Secondly, the order from which the appeal was preferred to the State Transport Authority was on its very face not an order of refusal of a permit and no appeal lay against it to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had thus no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from such an order and the exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Authority suffered from an illegality patent on the face of the record.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a registered firm and a motor contractor, challenged the grant of permits to respondents 3, 4, and 5 for operating stage carriages on the Tonk-Sawai Madhopur route. They alleged that the traffic on the route was meager, and the existing vehicles were sufficient to meet the demand. They also contended that the Appellate Authority, which granted the permits, was illegally constituted and that the Transport Minister, who acted as the Chairman of the Appellate Authority, lacked the authority to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the constitution of the Appellate Authority was illegal because the Transport Minister, who acted as its Chairman, did not possess the requisite judicial experience as required by Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court also found that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, from which the appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority, was not an order of refusal of a permit and, therefore, no appeal lay to the Appellate Authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the constitution of the Appellate Authority was illegal due to the Transport Minister's lack of judicial experience? 2. Whether the order of the Regional Transport Authority was an order of refusal of a permit, allowing for an appeal to the Appellate Authority?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The constitution of the Appellate Authority was illegal because the Transport Minister, who acted as its Chairman, did not possess the requisite judicial experience as required by Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The order of the Regional Transport Authority, from which the appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority, was not an order of refusal of a permit and, therefore, no appeal lay to the Appellate Authority.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order of the lower court granting permits to respondents 3, 4, and 5 was quashed.
Ranawat, J.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Badridass Kanhaiyalal, a registered firm and Shri Mahmood Khan, Motor Contractor of Tonk against the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur and three others for writs of certiorari and prohibition quashing the orders of respondents No. 1 and 2 dated 29-91958, and 5 and 6-5-1951 respectively and restraining them from issuing further permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 on Tonk-Sawai Madhopur route.
( 2 ) THE allegations of the petitioners are that they hold three stage carriage permits for plying buses on Tonk-Sawai Madhopur route and that the traffic on the said route is meagre and one only out of the three vehicles of the petitioners is used to meet the requirements of the traffic and the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Tonk, after holding enquiries regarding the condition of the traffic on the route, came to the conclusion that the traffic was meagre and there was no Justification for increase in the number of vehicles on the route. It was further alleged that some persons applied for grant of stage carriage permits on the said route and the R. T. A. after publishing their applications considered them in its meetings of 5th and 6th of May, 1958, and decided to advertise the route for inviting fresh petitions. It is also alleged that 5 persons including respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 went in appeal to the Appellate Authority of the S. T. A. against the resolution of the R. T. A. No. 178 of the 5th and 6th of May, 1958, and the Appellate Authority accepted the appeals of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and ordered issue of one permit each to them. The petitioners challenge the order of the Appellate Authority of 9-9-1958 granting permits to respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 far the following reasons:
1. The order of the R. T. A. of the 5th and 6th of May, 1958, did not amount to an order of refusal for permit and no appeal under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act was competent from it and the Appellate Authority had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain appeals and to grant permits to respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
2. Both R. T. A. and the Appellate Authority of the S. T. A, are not properly constituted for Rule 76 read with Rule 108 and Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules of 1951 are inconsistent with the provision of Section 44 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Act No. 100 of 1956, and are, therefore, invalid, and the Transport Minister, who acted has Chairman of the S. T. A, and that of the Appellate Auth fry by virtue of Rule 76 read with Rule 108 had no authority to do so.
( 3 ) THE act of the R. T. A. in inviting fresh applications for stage carriage permits on Tonk-Sawai Madhopur route and the act of the Appellate Authority in granting permits to respondents Nos. 3. 4 and 5 are in violation of the provision of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the requirements of the traffic have not been considered by the aforesaid authorities in inviting fresh petitions and also in granting permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 5.
3. The petitioners prayed for grant of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the R. T. A. and the Appellate Authority of 29-9-1957 and 5th and 6th of May, 1958 respectively and for a writ of prohibition restraining the R. T. A. from issuing permits to respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
( 4 ) THE respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed a reply to the writ petition. They denied that the traffic 09 Tonk-Sawai Madhopur route was meagre and stated that there was sufficient traffic on the route to keep the vehicles of the petitioners and those of the respondents Nos. 3. 4 and 5 busy as the daily services on the route were increased from one to another. They also stated that the constitution of the R. T. A. and that of the S. T. A. were legal and that the order of the R. T. A. of 29-9-1958 was in fact an order of refusal of permits and an
AI
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
