Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
SUBBA RAO
Mannarghat Union Motor Services Ltd., Mannarghat, South Malabar
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Malabar and others
Civil Misc. Petn. No.4436 of 1951
Decided On : 4 September, 1951
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT - GRANT OF - REASONS TO BE GIVEN - MADRAS MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (4 OF 1939), SECS. 57(2), 57(3), 57(7), 64.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a bus company, challenged the grant of a stage carriage permit to the fourth respondent by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA). The RTA had issued a notification inviting applications for the permit, and the petitioners and others had applied. However, the RTA had not disposed of the earlier proceedings initiated under the Madras Motor Vehicles Act, and the petitioners argued that the subsequent proceedings were illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTA by participating in the subsequent proceedings without raising the issue of jurisdiction. However, the court also held that the RTA's order granting the permit to the fourth respondent was invalid because the RTA had failed to give reasons for its decision, as required by Section 57(7) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the RTA had jurisdiction to grant the permit to the fourth respondent in light of the pending earlier proceedings. 2. Whether the RTA's order granting the permit was valid, given that it did not provide reasons for the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were precluded from raising the issue of jurisdiction because they had submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTA by participating in the subsequent proceedings without raising the issue. 2. The court held that the RTA's order granting the permit was invalid because the RTA had failed to give reasons for its decision, as required by Section 57(7) of the Act. The court held that the reason given by the RTA, that the fourth respondent was the most suitable applicant, was too general and did not allow for meaningful appellate review.
Final Decision: The court quashed the RTA's order granting the permit to the fourth respondent and directed the RTA to issue permits afresh in accordance with the law.
ORDER :- This is an application for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, Malabar, The Central Road Traffic Board and the State of Madras. The petitioners are the Mannarghat Union Motor Services Ltd. They are plying buses with stage carriage permits in South Malabar since the year 1936. The Regional Transport Authority published a notification R.No.23589 A. 2/49 on 24th February 1949 inviting application for the issue of a temporary permit for a bus on Calicut-Areakode via Feroke and Kundotty. Two persons applied for the permit but the proceedings were dropped as in April 1949 the Regional Transport Officer and Secretary stated that as the Central Road Traffic Board directed the Regional Transport Authority to issue pucca permits for stage carriages in the same route the notification was cancelled. The Regional Transport Authority, Malabar, issued a notice dated 16th May 1949 under Sec.57(2) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Act inviting fresh applications for the grant of stage carriage permits for the said route. In response to this notification, the petitioners and two others applied for permits. It may be mentioned that the fourth respondent is not one of the applicants.
On 11th June 1949, the Regional Transport Authority, Malabar, issued another notification under Sec.57(3) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Act calling for objections, if any, for the grant of permits to the applicants. Objections were filed. But curiously those proceedings were not pursued but it is represented to me that they were dropped as the Government issued directions to the Regional Transport Authority that no new routes should be opened without the previous permission of the Central Road Traffic Board. But the petitioners were not informed of this notification or the dropping off the proceedings pursuant to the directions. On 4th April 1950, the petitioners received another notice under Sec.57(2) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Act stating that the Regional Transport Authority, Malabar will receive applications on or before 2nd May 1950 for the grant of stage carriage permits over the same route. The petitioners, the 4th respondent and others applied. Notice under S.57(3) of the Act was duly issued and representations were called for. No representation was made either by the petitioners or by any other person that the proceedings were illegal as the previous proceedings duly instituted under the provisions of the Act were not finally disposed of. The Regional Transport Authority passed a laconic order.
"Nos.4, 9 and 15 do not press. Granted to M/s. C.C. Automobiles Ltd. as the most suitable. Time for production of vehicles two months."
Against that, an appeal was filed to the Central Road Traffic Board, and that was dismissed without any reasons. When a revision was filed, the Government of Madras declined to interfere with the Subordinate Tribunals orders. Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioners, raised before me two points. The proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority initiated by its notification dated 4th April 1950 are illegal as the earlier proceedings legally instituted and pursued were not finally disposed of. The Regional Transport Authority gave a reason which on the face of it cannot be tested by a Court of appeal and therefore the said order did not comply with the provisions of Sec.57(7) of the Act. I cannot say that there is no force in the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners but I do not propose to express my final opinion thereon as on the facts it is clear that the petitioners submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority.
If the petitioners thought that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction, they should have raised that plea without taking a chance of getting a decision in their favour. Designedly or ignorantly they kept quiet or perhaps they did not want to displease the Regional Transport Author
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
