Back
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Wanchoo C.J. & Bhandari, J.
Mangilal - Appellant
Versus
A.T.S.T.A. Rajasthan, Jaipur - Respondents
S.B. C. Writ Petition No. 159 of 1954
Decided On : December 12, 1955
Sec. 60(1)(d) does not require that the fraud must be on the authority granting the permit. A fraud may have been played on any body in obtaining the permit. It might be that the fraud may be on the agent of A.T.S.T.A. Raj., or in its office or on its subordinate. As long as the petitioner obtained the permit by playing a fraud he cannot be permitted to argue that he did not do so directly on the authority cancelling the permit. (Para 9)
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 sec. 48(d). Clauses (i) to (iv) of sec. 41(d) make no reference to such a condition. The word prescribed has been defined in sec. 2(21) of the Act and it means prescribed by the rules framed under the Act. There is no rule authorising the Regional Transport Authority to attach to a stage carriage permit any conditions regarding the year of the manufacture of the transport vehicle that can be permitted to be plied (Para 10)
We cannot encourage the idea that a men is entitled to adopt dubious or dishonest or fraudulent means in order to support his true right or claim. It would be laying down a dangerous principle in the conduct of the human affairs. The courts of will also be flooded by false evidence and false documents even in support of true claims. The means should be as pure as the end. It was open to the petitioner to make representation to respondent No. 1 against the Act of respondent No. 2 in refusing the permit for his bus of 1948 modal and thus seek redress from the Authority. He could have come to this Court at that stage and prayed for the issue of a proper writ or direction against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Instead of adopting the straightforward course, he adopted dubious means for which he must suffer. (Para 15)
The applicant who comes to this court invoking the exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands. This Court will refuse to interfere even if cases where it recognizes his right unless the conduct of the petitioner has been fair and honest and free from any fraud. This court cannot help those persons who are guilty of practising deceitful means on any person or authority. (Para 16)
2. The circumstances under which respondent No 1 ordered the cancellation of the permit of the petitioner are as hereunder—
The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, published a notification in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated the 4th of October, 1932, inviting applications for permits for plying stage carriage on Makrana-Parbatsar-Bassi route for three years. The petitioners application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority and the petitioner went in appeal 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 Nagaur District and its registered No. was RJS. 131. The petitioner applied to the respondent No. 2 to issue the permit for plying the bus No. R.J.S. 131. But 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 relied 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 a new registration certificate. The Registering Authority Jaipur assigned new registration mark RJL 0173 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 product the new certificate of registration before that authority. Respondent No. 2 issued a permit to the petitioner as prayed for, and the petitioner stared plying the bus from the 10:h 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 sec. 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,
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of respondent No.l on various grounds
SupremeToday
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
