1960 Supreme(P&H) 128

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
I.D.Dua and Shamsher Bahadur JJ.
Barham Dutt
Versus
Peoples Co Operative Transport Society Ltd., New Delhi
Letter Patent Appeal No. 47 of 1960,
Decided On : AUGUST 8, 1960

The Transport Authorities can only consider factors specified in the Motor Vehicles Act when granting or refusing permits, and cannot consider extraneous factors such as promises made by the Government.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 47 - GRANT OF STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT - PREFERENCE TO COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 14 - CLASSIFICATION - REASONABLE - NOT VIOLATIVE.

Fact of the Case:

The State Transport Authority, Delhi, invited applications for a stage carriage permit in respect of the route Narela-Bahadargarh via Tikri Kalan. The Peoples Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., the Delhi Ex-Servicemen Cooperative Multipurpose Transport Society Ltd., and Braham Dutt, Munshi Ram and Amar Nath, residents of Najafgarh, were some of the applicants for the aforesaid permit. After scrutiny, the necessary publication according to law was done and the State Transport Authority thereafter proceeded to consider the respective merits of the various applicants for coming to a final decision. The State Transport Authority, after considering the qualifications of the candidates, came to the conclusion that The Peoples Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. and the Delhi Ex-Service-men Cooperative Multipurpose Transport Society Ltd. were equally qualified with the result that drawing of lots was considered to be the more-desirable course; according to this method the Peoples Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. came out to be the lucky one and it was accordingly directed that the permit should be issued to that Society for a period of three years. Four appeals seem to have been preferred against the above order of the State Transport Authority which was dated 14-3-1958, these appeals were heard by the Chief Commissioner. After considering the claims of the rival candidates, it was decided that the permit should be granted to three persons, Braham Dutt, Munshi Ram and Amar Nath, who were treated as one unit. Against this order, an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was presented in this Court for quashing the same. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the arguments addressed and after going through the record, came to the conclusion that the Chief Commissioner had taken a wholly extraneous matter into consideration; namely, a promise said to have been held out in 1941 to Braham. Dutt and others that their claim in future would be favourably considered. According to the learned Single Judge, the permit under the Motor Vehicles Act has to be granted after following the procedure laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act and any consideration like honouring a promise made by the Government or by the Chief Commissioner is entirely outside the scope of the statute. Such a promise is calculated to by-pass the choice of the most competent person which has to be determined by following the procedure laid down in the Act. Finding support for this view in Nav Hind Finance and Transport (Private) Ltd. V/s. Chief Commissioner, Delhi, 1959-61 Pun LK 647: (AIR 1959 Punj 473) the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order quashed. After quashing the order, the learned Single Judge, in exercise of his power under Article 227 of the Constitution, further directed that there should be a fresh decision of the appeals by the Chief Commissioner who should re-hear and re-decide the matter in accordance with law. It is against this order that the present two Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Chief Commissioner had taken a wholly extraneous matter into consideration, namely, a promise said to have been held out in 1941 to Braham. Dutt and others that their claim in future would be favourably considered. The court further held that the permit under the Motor Vehicles Act has to be granted after following the procedure laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act and any consideration like honouring a promise made by the Government or by the Chief Commissioner is entirely outside the scope of the statute.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Commissioner erred in granting the permit to the appellants on the ground of a promise made in 1941? 2. Whether the proviso to Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is unconstitutional for violating Article 14 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Chief Commissioner had erred in granting the permit to the appellants on the ground of a promise made in 1941. The court reasoned that the Motor Vehicles Act does not allow the Transport Authorities to consider factors outside the statute, such as promises made by the Government. The court further held that the interest of the public, more particularly of the travelling public, and the advantages to it of the service to be provided are the basic and important factors to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting or refusing permits. 2. The court held that the proviso to Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is not unconstitutional for violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the classification created by the proviso is reasonable and bears a nexus to the object of the statute, which is to secure the advantage or benefit of the travelling public.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal.