Back
1964 Supreme(Mad) 107
Madras High Court
VEERASWAMI
Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd.Tanjore - Appellant
Versus
Raman and Raman (P) Ltd., Kumbakonam - Respondent
Decided On : 03/10/1964
Advocate General for G. Ramaswami and S.M. Subramaniam, for Petitioners (in W.P. No. 843/61 and for 2nd Respondent in W.P. No. 89/62); S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, for M.N. Rangachari and S. Palaniswami, for 1st Respondent (in W.P. No. 843/61 and for petitioner in W.P. No. 189/62; K. Venkataswami for Addl. Government Pleader for 2nd Respondent (in W.P. No. 843/61 and for 1st Respondent in W.P. No. 189/62).
A Government order directing the extension of a route is irrelevant to a quasi judicial consideration by the Regional Transport Authority of grant or refusal of a variation of a condition of a permit by extension of a route and is improper and in excess of the powers of the Government under S. 43A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - S. 43A(2), 47(1), 48A, 57(8), 64, 64A - Variation of route - Government order directing extension of route - Whether relevant to quasi judicial consideration by Regional Transport Authority - Whether improper and in excess of powers of Government - Notice under S. 48A to applicant for variation - Whether necessary.
Fact of the Case:
The State Transport Authority set aside an order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a variation of a route to Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. on the grounds that the Regional Transport Authority should not have relied on a Government order directing the extension of the route and that Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. should not have been issued a notice under S. 48A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. filed a petition to quash the order of the State Transport Authority, and Raman and Raman (P) Ltd., an objector to the variation, filed a petition to quash the remand of the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the revision petition before the State Transport Authority was competent, as the deeming provision in S. 57(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which treats an application for variation of a condition of a stage carriage permit as an application for a new permit, does not confer a right of appeal against an order under S. 57(8). The court also held that the Government order directing the extension of the route was irrelevant to the quasi judicial consideration by the Regional Transport Authority and was improper and in excess of the powers of the Government under S. 43A(2) of the Act. The court further held that a notice under S. 48A of the Act to Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. was not necessary, as the application was for a variation of a condition of a permit and not for a new permit.
Issues: 1. Whether the revision petition before the State Transport Authority was competent. 2. Whether the Government order directing the extension of the route was relevant to the quasi judicial consideration by the Regional Transport Authority. 3. Whether the Government order was improper and in excess of the powers of the Government under S. 43A(2) of the Act. 4. Whether a notice under S. 48A of the Act to Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. was necessary.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A right of appeal is not a common law right but springs from express legislative authority. 2. The deeming provision in S. 57(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which treats an application for variation of a condition of a stage carriage permit as an application for a new permit, does not confer a right of appeal against an order under S. 57(8). 3. An order of the Government passed in exercise of its power under S. 43A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is irrelevant to a quasi judicial consideration by the Regional Transport Authority of grant or refusal of a variation of a condition of a permit by extension of a route. 4. If the order of the Government directing the extension of a route is passed pending quasi judicial consideration of the very question at any stage or after the quasi judicial authority has decided the question, such an order is improper and in excess of the powers of the Government under S. 43A(2) of the Act. 5. A notice under S. 48A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is not necessary for an application for variation of a condition of a permit.
Final Decision: Both petitions were dismissed, but with costs in neither.
ORDER :- These are connected petitions to quash the same order of the State Transport Authority dated 12-06-1961, setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, dated 30-04-1957, which granted the variation of the route Tanjore to Kumbakonam as Tanjore to Koradachery via Kumbakonam and Kodavasal, in favour of Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. The State Transport Authority directed the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of the application of Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd., afresh according to the law. By G. O. Ms. No. 3199 Home, dated 16-11-1956, the State Government in the purported exercise of its power under S. 43-A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, directed the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, to vary the existing route Tanjore to Kumbakonam as Tanjore to Koradachery via Kumbakonam and Kodavasal in respect of two buses. The Government made this order as a result of three petitions, two of them in July 1956 by two members of the local legislative Assembly and the third on 6-8-1956 by Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. The Regional Transport authority relied on this Government order and in keeping with it, so was it stated, granted the variation of the route in respect of two buses MDO. 1959 and MDO 1960 of Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd.
Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. who was an objector and not an operator on the route, filed a revision petition to the State Transport Authority against that order. The State Transport Authority was of the view that the order should be set aside on two grounds (1) That the Regional Transport Authority should not have relied on the Government Order, as a direction to grant the variation in favour of Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd, but it should have called for applications from all the existing operators on the route Tanjore to Kumbakonam and chosen one or more applicants, according to the need and merits of the case and (2) that Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd., itself being an applicant for variation, the Regional Transport Authority was wrong in issuing to it a notice under S. 48-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for which there was no need. Since in its view the Regional Transport Authority did not properly interpret the order of the Government, the State Transport Authority set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal according to the law.
2. Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd., in W. P. No. 843 of 1961 seeks to quash the order of the State Transport Authority on the ground that the revision petition was not competent and on the further ground that the State Transport Authority was not right in its view of the propriety and effect of the notice under S. 48A of the Act to Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd., on the order of the Regional Transport Authority. In my opinion, neither of the grounds can be sustained.
3. Section 64-A provides for a revision to the State Transport Authority against an order of a Regional Transport Authority from which no appeal lies. Section 64(1) allows appeals to the prescribed authority, which is the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in specified cases, two of them being by a person aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him or being a local authority or police authority or an association which, or a person providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto.
Learned Advocate General for Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd., submits that an appeal from the order of the Regional Transport Authority under S. 57(8) lies under S. 64(1)(f) relating to the second category of the two cases I have mentioned. Section 57(8) enjoins that an application to vary a condition of a stage carriage permit by inclusion of a new route should be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit : The effect of this is that an application should be disposed of by complyi
