Venkatarama Aiyar, J.: W.P. Nos. 333, 334 and 615 of 1951.- These applications raise questions of considerable importance about the validity of the permit system under the Motor Vehicles Act and of some of the provisions of that Act.

The facts in W.P. No. 333 of 1951 are these:

In the Tenkasi Uthumalai route in the district of Tirunelveli, the 2nd respondent was running one stage carriage. On 25th July, 1950, applications were invited for a second stage carriage service over the route. Among the applicants were the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. On 25th August, 1950, the Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the 2nd respondent. On appeal the Central Road Traffic Board set aside this order on 5th November, 1950 and granted the permit to the petitioner. The respondent moved the Government under section 64-A of the Act and after various proceedings which it is unnecessary now to detail the Government passed an order on 5th July, 1951, setting aside the order of the Central Road Traffic Board and restored that of the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner now seeks to set aside this order as unconstitutional.

The facts in W.P. No. 334 of 1951 are these:

A new route between Tenkasi and Sendamaram in the district of Tirunelveli was opened in 1950 and applications were invited for two stage carriage permits in that route. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent who, it may be mentioned are the same as in W.P. No. 333 of 1951 were among the sixteen applicants for the permit. On 8th January, 1951, the Regional Transport Authority granted one permit to the petitioner and the other to the 2nd respondent and dismissed the other applications. On appeal by the 2nd respondent the Central Road Traffic Board passed an order on 2nd April, 1951, setting aside the grant of permit to the petitioner and granting it to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner moved the Government under S. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act but the Government rejected the petition summarily on 30th July, 1951, by an order which is in these terms: “The Government sees no reason to interfere”. It is this order that is attacked in W.P. No. 334 of 1951.

In W.P. No. 615 of 1951 the material facts are these:

In 1950, it was decided to open a new bus route between Kodavasal and Saliamangalam in the Tanjore district. The petitioner first got permits to run two stage carriages on this route. Later on applications were invited for two more permits. There were eight applicants including the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. On 2nd June, 1951, the Regional Transport Authority granted these two permits to the petitioner. On appeal the Central Road Traffic Board passed an order on 10th August, 1951, setting aside the grant of the two permits to the petitioner and dividing it between respondents 4 and 5. A revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 64-A was dismissed on 4th October, 1951, the order of the Government being in these terms: “Government sees no reason to interfere.” It is this order that is questioned in W.P. No. 615 of 1951. These and other similar petitions were heard together as they raised more or less the same controversies about the validity of the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Notice was issued to the Attorney-General of India, as the legislation impugned was an Act of the Central Legislature, and the learned Advocate-General has addressed us on his behalf as well. We had the benefit of able and exhaustive arguments on various aspects of the case by Mr. K.V. Venkatasubramania Aiyar for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 333 and 334 of 1951, by Mr. K. Bhashyam Aiyangar for the petitioner in W.P. No. 615 of 1951, by other learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners in other cases, by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Government respondent and by Mr. M.K. Nambiar on behalf of the successful applicants who are respondents in these petitions.

Before dealing with the several contentions urged in the case it is necessary to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document