Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.-

These related appeals, which are upon practically identical facts, have been instituted from the judgment of Srinivasan, J., in W.P. Nos. 1466 and 1467 of 1964, under the following circumstances. In both the appeals, the appellant is Taj Mahal Transport (P.), Ltd., a stage-carriage operating concern in Tirunelveli District. There was a particular route, Palayapettai to Tirunelveli Junction (via) Tirunelveli Town and Kurukkuturai, for which two permits had been assigned. In 1961, a certain Muthiah Asari was the holder of the permits. The appellant concern has a bus relating to another permit and route, namely, Tirunelveli Town to Melapalayam (via) Kurukkuturai and Melanatham’.

This route and the route relating to the permits of Muthiah Asari, to which we have just referred, have both a common sector of one mile between Tirunelveli Town and Kurukkuturai. Muthiah Asari applied for a variation of the route of his permits, so as to enable him also to ply between Kurukkuturai and Melapalayam. The contention of the appellant is that if this variation be permitted, it would virtually amount to an operation by Muthiah Asari on the identical route for which the appellant has the sanction to operate.

The application by Muthiah Asari For variation of the route was duly notified under the Motor Vehicles Act, but, on that date, the appellant concern had not; become an operator on the route Tirunelveli Town to, Melapalayam. Hence, the appellant had no opportunity to advance objection to the approval of the proposed variation. After the appellant obtained his permit, he was served with notice in the proceedings by the Regional Transport Authority, in respect of the proposed variation ; in the meantime, R. Subba Reddi (second respondent) had become the transferee of the property rights of Muthiah Asari. Admittedly, Subba Reddi (second respondent) made no independent application, nor was there any notification of such application. He has throughout been seeking to continue the notified applications of Muthiah Asari for variation, claiming to be the successor in-interest by virtue of the transfer recognised under rule 196 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, and the succeeding rules specifying the procedure.

It was in this situation that the Taj Mahal Transports (P.), Ltd. instituted these writ proceedings before the learned Judge (Srinivasan, J.) for a writ of prohibition, on the following grounds. Firstly, it is strenuously contended that the proposed’ variation is not one permitted by the Amended Act, within the ambit of the powers: of the Regional Transport Authority. Since, in effect, the approval of such a variation will gravely prejudice the appellant concern by inevitable competition, for the number of trips on the identical route, this attempt by the Regional Transport Authority to assume a jurisdiction that the Authority does not possess, should be restrained by the issue of a writ of prohibition. It is the law that such a writ can issue to restrain an inferior Tribunal from proceeding beyond its jurisdiction or erroneously assuming jurisdiction ; the writ is of right and the existence of an alternative remedy, after the variation has been granted, through a statutory appeal, is no bar to the issue of the writ. A writ ought to issue in order to prevent the mischief. Secondly, there has been no independent application by Subba Reddi (second respondent), which has been notified under the law. The second respondent cannot claim to be the successor-in-interest of Muthiah Asari, entitled to continue the applications of that individual for the variation. The Motor Vehicles Act is a self-contained Code, with its own procedure arid under the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder there is no provision for the continuance of such a notified application by a successor-in-interest, and, in the absence of such a provision the continuance will be illegal. These are the main grounds upon which the issue of the writ of pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document