Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
CHOWDHRY, J.
Baghat Transport Service Ltd.
Versus
The State of H. P.
Writ Petn. Nos. 7/17, 8/18, 9/19, 10/20, 11/21, 12/22 and 13/23 of 1950
Decided On : 22-01-1951
The seven petitioners were granted contract carriage permits for various vehicles to run passenger service on the Simla Hill Road within the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The permits were renewed twice for three months each, and the Secretary of the Provincial Transport Authority informed the petitioners that temporary route permits for that quarter were being issued to them as a very special case, and extensions of those permits will not be granted under any circumstances. The petitioners filed applications for renewal of permits, which were not disposed of according to the procedure laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Provincial Transport Authority refused to renew the permits on the ground of nationalization of road transport, which was a reason extraneous to the intention of the Act. The petitioners filed petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition under Art. 226, Const. Ind., to direct the Government of the State of Himachal Pradesh to consider their applications for renewal of permits according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and to prohibit them from stopping the passenger service that was being run by the petitioners for at least three years from 1-4-1950 (the date of renewal), or at least from 1-4-1949 (the date of original issue), as required by S. 58 of the Act. The petitions were opposed by the Government Advocate on various grounds, including the contention that the petitioners had no fundamental right of carrying on transport business within this State and that right has been infringed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were granted contract carriage permits for various vehicles to run passenger service on the Simla Hill Road within the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The permits were renewed twice for three months each, and the Secretary of the Provincial Transport Authority informed the petitioners that temporary route permits for that quarter were being issued to them as a very special case, and extensions of those permits will not be granted under any circumstances. The petitioners filed applications for renewal of permits, which were not disposed of according to the procedure laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Provincial Transport Authority refused to renew the permits on the ground of nationalization of road transport, which was a reason extraneous to the intention of the Act. The petitioners filed petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition under Art. 226, Const. Ind., to direct the Government of the State of Himachal Pradesh to consider their applications for renewal of permits according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and to prohibit them from stopping the passenger service that was being run by the petitioners for at least three years from 1-4-1950 (the date of renewal), or at least from 1-4-1949 (the date of original issue), as required by S. 58 of the Act. The petitions were opposed by the Government Advocate on various grounds, including the contention that the petitioners had no fundamental right of carrying on transport business within this State and that right has been infringed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the original permits granted to the petitioners were regular permits under S. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and not temporary permits under S. 62. The Court also held that each of the two renewals of the original permits was illegal and did not amount to a valid disposal of the petitioners' applications for renewal. The Court further held that the Provincial Transport Authority was not justified in refusing to renew the petitioners' permits on the ground of (a) nationalization of transport service, or (b) the permits granted to petitioners being really the quota of the Himachal Pradesh Government under an arrangement between it and the Punjab and Pepsu Governments, or (c) refusal being in the larger interests of the State of Himachal Pradesh or of the public at large as distinguished from the private interests of the petitioners. The Court also held that the petitioners have the fundamental right of carrying on transport business within this State and that right has been infringed.
Issues: 1. Whether the original permits granted to the petitioners were regular permits under S. 58, or only temporary permits under S. 62, Motor Vehicles Act? 2. Whether each of the two subsequent renewals of the original permits (a) was illegal because made for three months only, or (b) did not amount to valid disposal of applications for renewal- according to the procedure prescribed by the Act? 3. Whether the Provincial Transport Authority was justified in refusing to renew the petitioners permits on the ground of (a) nationalisation of transport service, or (b) the permits granted to ptnrs. being really the quota of the Himachal Pradesh Govt. under an arrangement between it and the Punjab and Pepsu Govts., or (c) refusal being in the larger interests of the State of Himachal Pradesh or of the public at large as distinguished from the private interests of the ptnrs ? 4. Whether the ptnrs. have the fundamental right of carrying on transport business within this State and that right has been infringed? 5. Whether the petns. are barred by acquiescence?. 6. Whether petnrs. have been guilty of delay or laches such as to disentitle them to the reliefs claimed ?. 7. Whether the petns. do not lie because other remedies were open to the petnrs?. 8. Whether the petnrs. have had no cause of action because the performance of the duty now prayed for was not demanded or refused ?. 9. Whether the petns. are defective in form or wanting in necessary particulars ?. 10. Whether Prabh Dyal has sold off his carriage ?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Provincial Transport Authority to hear and dispose of in accordance with law the applications for renewal of permits filed twice by each of them, once on the expiry of 31-3-1950 and again on the expiry of 30-6-1950. The Court also held that until the disposal of these applications as directed, the said Transport Authority shall permit these six petitioners to continue to ply the buses for the renewal of those permits the said applications were made. The Court further held that the petitioners were entitled to costs from the said Authority.
Final Decision: The petitions of all the petitioners, except Prabh Dayal, were allowed. A writ of mandamus was issued to the Provincial Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, directing it to hear and dispose of in accordance with law the applications for renewal of permits filed twice by each of them, once on the expiry of 31-3-1950 and again on the expiry of 30-6-1950. Until the disposal of these applications as directed, the said Transport Authority was directed to permit these six petitioners to continue to ply the buses for the renewal of those permits the said applications were made. These six petitioners were also awarded costs from the said Authority. The petition of Prabh Dayal was dismissed with costs.
2. All the seven appcts. were originally granted permits for their respective vehicles on 1-4-1949 for a period of one year. Those permits were later on renewed twice, the first time for the three months which ended on 30-6-1950 and again for the next three months which ended on 30-9-1950.
3. While renewing permits for the quarter ending on 30-9-1950, the Secretary of the Provincial Transport Authority informed the appcts. that temporary route permits for that quarter were being issued to them as a very special case, and extensions of those permits will not be granted under any circumstances. The first appct. has filed a copy of the letter, dated 30-6-1950, which is Ex. 1 on the record. The following correspondence then ensued between that appct. and the Provincial Transport Authority. The other appcts. do not appear to have had any art or part in this correspondence except for the last letter Ex. 9, dated 19-9-1950, which was addressed to the Chief Comer. of Himachal Pradesh as Controller of the Provincial Transport by Shri H.R. Sodhi, Advocate, on behalf of all the seven appcts.
4. The first letter sent by the first appct. after receipt of the aforesaid information as to refusal to grant further extensions of permits was Ex. 2, dated 4-7-1950. It was addressed to the Secretary of the Provincial Transport Authority on behalf of the appct. by Sardar Sahib Shri Pratap Singh Advocate. It was alleged in this letter that the original permits granted to the appct. for his two vehicles should have been for the minimum period of three years under S. 58, Motor Vehicles Act, and that the order limiting the period to only one year ending 31-3-1950 was without jurisdiction, and the adderssee was requested to rectify the mistake. The Secretary replied to the appcts. counsel by the letter Ex. 3 which runs as follows :
"The permits in question were granted within two years of the commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act in Himachal Pradesh, under the proviso to S. 58, and thus the order limiting the period of validity of the permits for one year is in order."
Two other letters were sent by the aforesaid learned advocate on behalf of the appct. to the Secretary on 4-7-1950, being Exs. 4 and 5. The former purports to have been written in reply to the aforesaid letter Ex. 1 dated 30-6-1950 from the Secretary of the P. T. Authority. It was mentioned in this letter that the appct. had been under the impression that his original appln. for renewal of route permits had been issued only to cover the intervening period during which his appln. was under consideration, but that it appeared from the aforesaid letter (Ex. 1) that the said appln. for renewal had been rejected ex parte without notice to the appct. It was prayed that a certified copy of the order rejecting the appln. be supplied to the appct. to enable him to file an appeal against that order. The other letter ex. 5 is an appln. for copy of the order. To these letters the appcts counsel received a reply dated 24-7-1950 from the Secretary P. T. Authority, which is Ex. 6 on the record, and which runs as follows :
"With reference to your letter dated 4-7-1950, I write to inf
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
