SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Raj) 152

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : D.S.Dave,I.N.Modi
VIJAY TRANSPORT CO. - Appellant
Versus
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, JAIPURD - Respondent
Writ Petn. 81 Of 1957
Decided On : 08/01/1957

Advocates Appeared:
KAN SINGH, Ratanlal, Sumer Chand

The High Court should not interfere in a matter which is properly pending before another Tribunal according to law.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 62 - TEMPORARY PERMIT - GRANT OF - CONDITIONS - APPEAL PENDING BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - WRIT - WHEN CAN BE ISSUED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, holders of stage carriage permits on the Taranagar-Sardarsahar route, challenged the grant of a temporary permit to Laxmi Narain on the same route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur. The Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority vacated the stay order granted by it earlier restraining Laxmi Narain from plying his bus. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal and also the grant of the temporary permit.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that it should not interfere in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction until a proceeding pending before another Tribunal according to law has been decided by that Tribunal. The court observed that the petitioners had already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority against the order of the Regional Transport Authority and that it was for the Appellate Tribunal to decide the matter on the merits.

Issues: 1. Whether the High Court should interfere in a matter which is properly pending before the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority? 2. Whether the petitioners should have made an application to the Appellate Tribunal for accelerating the hearing of their appeal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that it should not interfere in a matter which is properly pending before the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority. The court observed that the petitioners had already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority against the order of the Regional Transport Authority and that it was for the Appellate Tribunal to decide the matter on the merits. 2. The court also observed that the petitioners should have made an application to the Appellate Tribunal for accelerating the hearing of their appeal.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Judgment


I. N. MODI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Vijay transport Company arm two others and has been made under the following circumstances :

( 2 ) THE three petitioners are holders of stage carriage permits on the Taranagar --Sardarsahar route and their permits were renewed for a period of three years by an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jpdhpur, dated 28-2-56. It appears that after some time opposite party No. 3, Laxmi Narain, applied for a temporary permit on this route on the allegation that the permit of petitioner No. 2, hussamkhan Ramgopal, had been lying idle and was not being utilised, with the result that there was scope for the running of one more bus on the route in question. Consequently, the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur. by its resolution No. 9, dated 28-3-57, granted a temporary permit for a period of 4 mouths to Laxmi Narain on the ground that there was temporary need to provide one more bus on the route, in question owing to the fact that the permit of one of the permit holders had not been availed of. Against this order the petitioners went in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority, their contention being that Laxmi Narain had also applied for a permanent permit on the same route and that application was still pending with the Regional Transport authority and the latter without deciding that application for the grant of a permanent permit had unlawfully granted a temporary permit to Laxmi Narain. The petitioners also applied for a stay order. The stay matter appears to have come up for hearing before the Appellate Tribunal on 29-4-1957 in the presence of both the parties. The learned members of the Tribunal thought it fit to grant a stay order and restrained Laxmi Narain from plying his bus till the petitioners appeal was finally decided. Thereupon, an application lor vacating the aforesaid stay order was made by Laxmi Narain to the Appellate Authority. This led to the order ot that authority dated 21-5-1957, whereby the same learned members who had formerly granted the stay order vacated it. We do not consider it necessary to question the reasons which persuaded the learned members to vacate the stay order which was granted by them before.

( 3 ) IT is against this order that the petitioners have come up to this court by means of the present writ application. It is, however, pertinent to point out that the petitioners have also prayed that the order passed by the Regional Transport authority granting the opposite party, Laxmi Narain, a temporary permit for a period of 4 months be vacated, as it was opposed to the provisions of the amended Section 62, Motor Vehicles Act.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection has been raised before us on behalf of the Appellate tribunal of the State Transport Authority and Laxmi Narain, opposite party No. 3, that we should not enter into the merits of the present application, inasmuch as the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Regional Transport authority is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport authority. This objection is sought to be met on behalf of the petitioners by saying that by the time the appeal comes up for hearing before the Appellate Tribunal, their appeal to that Authority would become infruc-tuous and secondly, that the learned members of the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority have made certain observations in their order vacating the stay order from which it would clearly appear that they have virtually decided the appeal without formally doing so.

( 5 ) WE have carefully examined the whole matter and wish to point out that the view of this court in circumstances like those we have before us has been not to interfere in the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction until a proceeding pending before another Tribunal according to law has been decided by that Tribunal If after such a decision the part





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top