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

1959 Supreme(Mad) 47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Balakrishna Ayyar
B. Radhakrishnan
Versus
The State of Madras, represented,by the Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras
W.P. Nos. 1376 of 1956 and 412 of 1958.
Decided On : 24 March 1959

Advocates:
M. K. Nambiar and K. K. Venugopal, for Petitioner.
The Additional Government Pleader (K. Veeraswamy), for Respondents.
The Advocate-General (V. K. Thruvenkatachari) and V. Ramaswami, for 3rd Respondent.

The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, were not intended to abrogate the customary rights of passage and repassage across intervening enclaves which had been enjoyed for many years.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 43-A - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO DIRECT REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TO PERMIT STAGE CARRIAGES PLYING ON ROUTES WITHIN PONDICHERRY STATE TO RUN ON PORTIONS OF THOSE ROUTES LYING WITHIN SOUTH ARCOT DISTRICT - VALIDITY - CUSTOMARY RIGHTS OF PASSAGE AND REPASSAGE ACROSS INTERVENING ENCLAVES - RECOGNITION AND GIVING EFFECT TO - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - REFUSAL TO ISSUE - CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING REFUSAL.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a bus operator in Cuddalore, challenged the validity of a Government Order (G.O.) issued under section 43-A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which directed the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot, to permit stage carriages plying on routes within the Pondicherry State to run on portions of those routes lying within the South Arcot District. The petitioner contended that the G.O. was ultra vires and invalid as it dispensed with the law of India in favor of certain persons who held licenses and permits from the authorities in Pondicherry, and that the Regional Transport Authority had no power to issue permits to Pondicherry-based vehicles without complying with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the G.O. was not ultra vires and invalid, as it merely recognized the customary rights of passage and repassage across intervening enclaves and attempted to give effect to them. The Court further held that the Regional Transport Authority had the power to issue permits to Pondicherry-based vehicles without complying with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as the provisions of the Act were not intended to abrogate the rights of free passage which were being enjoyed for so many years. The Court also held that the writ of mandamus should not be issued to compel the Regional Transport Authority to institute legal proceedings against Pondicherry vehicles running through Indian enclaves without obtaining permits from Indian authorities, as it would place an intolerable burden of inconvenience on numerous citizens of India and Pondicherry.

Issues: 1. Whether the G.O. issued under section 43-A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was ultra vires and invalid. 2. Whether the Regional Transport Authority had the power to issue permits to Pondicherry-based vehicles without complying with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 3. Whether the writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the Regional Transport Authority to institute legal proceedings against Pondicherry vehicles running through Indian enclaves without obtaining permits from Indian authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The G.O. was not ultra vires and invalid as it merely recognized the customary rights of passage and repassage across intervening enclaves and attempted to give effect to them. 2. The Regional Transport Authority had the power to issue permits to Pondicherry-based vehicles without complying with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as the provisions of the Act were not intended to abrogate the rights of free passage which were being enjoyed for so many years. 3. The writ of mandamus should not be issued to compel the Regional Transport Authority to institute legal proceedings against Pondicherry vehicles running through Indian enclaves without obtaining permits from Indian authorities, as it would place an intolerable burden of inconvenience on numerous citizens of India and Pondicherry.

Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed, but there was no order as to costs.

Order.-

By a treaty concluded in 1814 between England and France all the possessions in India which had belonged to the French on the 1st January 1792 were to be restored to them. The French also bound themselves not to erect any fortifications in India and to keep in their establishments only such troops as were, "necessary for the maintenance of the Police." In pursuance of this treaty the territories in question were actually handed over to the French in December, 1816. (Vide page 418 of Volume I of the South Arcot District Gazetteer).

The territories that were so handed over to the French included what we formerly used to call the French Settlements of Pondicherry. These settlements do not constitute a compact block but include a number of enclaves inside the district of South Arcot. It is impossible to enter some of these enclaves or emerge from them without crossing Indian territory. For instance a person who wants to go from Pondicherry Town to Canniacovil, both in Pondicherry territory, has to cross a bit of" land, a little less than two miles wide, running past the village of Rettichavady. To go from Villenour to Madagadipet both in Pondicherry territory, one has to cross Indian territory in two places. Before one can go from Pondicherry to Tircanour Indian territory has to be crossed in about three places. There are several other similar instances. Likewise there are bits of Indian territory which cannot be ordinarily reached except by passing through Pondicharry territory. Before one can reach Rettichavady from Cuddalore it is necessary to go through Canniacovil which is included in Pondicherry territory. There are a number of villages which form part of the territory of India which lie west of Ariancoupam village and south of Ariancoupam river which are wholly encircled by Pondicherry territory. It is common knowledge in the locality that there are numerous ryots who live in Pondicherry territory but who own agricultural lands in Indian territory and vice versa. For 130 years and more the residents of the enclaves attached to Pondicherry have been passing and repassing over Indian territory without let or hindrance. Similarly residents of what I may call Indian enclaves have been passing and repassing over Pondicherry territory. And this observation applies not merely to men and animals but also to vehicles of every description. No passports or visas were ever required. The only restrictions imposed on free travel across the enclaves were those created by the obligation to pay tolls, octroi duties, custom levies and licence fees when a vehicle was kept-and not merely taken through-in India or Pondicherry as the case may have been.

Sometime before 10th December, 1941 the Government of Madras suggested to the Governor of the French Establishments in India that a reciprocal arrangement be entered into by which vehicles registered in Pondicherry would be exempt from the payment of tax under the Madras Motor Vehicles Act for the use of specified short stretches of territory in India, and motor vehicles registered in Madras using certain stretches of French territory would be similarly exempted from the levy of French tax and tolls. The suggestion of the Madras Government was accepted and on 10th December, 1941 the Government of Madras issued a notification specifying the routes covered by the agreement.

Subsequently there was a de facto transfer of the former French Establishments in India to the Government of India. On 10th February, 1956, the Secretary, General Administration, Pondicherry, wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras explaining that the residents of Pondicherry often found it necessary to take out lorries carrying goods from Pondicherry to Chidambaram, Kumbakonam, Salem, Vellore and other places and requesting the Government of Madras to instruct their Transport Authorities to issue

"concurrent permits for running at least 15 buses and 15 lorries from Pondicherry, 5 buses and 5 lorries from Ka






























































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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top