The Chief Justice.-The petitioner is the owner of Lorry No. MDX 1251. He had a public carrier permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara and he was engaged in transporting milk, firewood, timber, stores and other materials from the neighbouring villages into Mangalore. On or about 14th April, 1950, the lorry was detained on suspicion that it contained smuggled rice. The driver of the lorry was subsequently charged by the police under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act in C.C. No. 602 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Mangalore. After a full enquiry the Magistrate discharged the accused driver holding that the accusation was groundless. This order was passed on 6th January, 1951.

Meanwhile, the Regional Transport Officer called upon the petitioner by a communication, dated 3rd November, 1950, to show cause why his permit should not be cancelled or suspended as the lorry was engaged in smuggling foodgrains. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but the officer passed an order on 3rd March, 1951, suspending the permit for a period of three months from 1st April, 1951 to 1st July, 1951. Though the order of the Magistrate had been passed prior to the order of the Regional Transport Officer, evidently the Magistrate’s order was not brought to the notice of the Transport Authority. Subsequently, an application was filed by the petitioner to the Regional Transport Officer to reconsider his decision in view of the order of the Magistrate discharging him holding that the accusation was baseless. This application appears to have been treated as an appeal by the petitioner and was finally disposed of by the Regional Transport Authority by its order, dated 31st March, 1951. The appeal was dismissed. The order of the Magistrate was brought to the notice of the Authority, but that Tribunal thought that though the Criminal Court had held that there was no sufficient evidence against the accused, the circumstances of the case as four d in the records of the subordinate officers of the Traffic Department showed that the owner had used the lorry for illicit smuggling of rice and therefore no interference with the orders of the Regional Transport Officer was called for. Thereupon the petitioner filed the above application praying that this Court might quash by a writ of certiorari the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority and the order of the Regional Transport Officer abovementioned.

The application came on originally before Subba Rao, J. On similar facts he had expressed the view in C. M. P. No. 8482 of 1950 that though the attitude of a quasi judicial Tribunal like the Transport Authority in ignoring the judgment of a Criminal Court may be regrettable, it did not affect the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. There was nothing to compel the Tribunal to accept the judgment, though it was not proper for a quasi judicial Tribunal to ignore the well-considered judgments of Courts, whether civil or criminal, without giving adequate reasons. After hearing arguments for some time, the learned Judge felt a doubt as to whether his prior view was correct. He was impressed by the other aspect, namely, that when a Criminal Court acquitted or discharged the driver of a public carriage on the ground that he did not commit an offence, and if the Regional Transport Authority had suspended the permit in respect of the vehicle on the basis of the very same offence, it must be held that the order of the Regional Transport Officer was based on a ground which must be deemed to be non-existent. The learned Judge therefore thought that it was a fit case for being heard by a Division Bench.

We have no hesitation in making it clear that a quasi judicial Tribunal like the Regional Transport Authority or the Appellate Tribunal therefrom cannot ignore the findings and orders of competent Criminal Courts in respect of an offence when the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document