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

1971 Supreme(P&H) 32

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.K.Mahajan, Gurdev Singh, R.S.Narula, Bal Raj Tuli and Bhopinder Singh Dhillon JJ.
Regional Transport Authority, Patiala
Versus
Gurbachan Singh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 122 of 1969,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 12, 1971

Issuance of notice and hearing of representations before granting a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is not mandatory, but it is expedient and proper in non-urgent cases to ensure compliance with the rules of natural justice.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Temporary Permit - Notice and Representation - Not mandatory - Authority can issue temporary permit without notice and hearing representations - Authority not precluded from issuing notice or considering representations - Quasi-judicial proceedings - Rules of natural justice - Notice and hearing - Expedient and proper in non-urgent cases.

Fact of the Case:

Three cases were placed before the Full Bench to determine whether it is necessary to issue notice and hear representations from persons already providing transport facilities in the proposed area or near the proposed route before the Authority can issue a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, expressly excludes the procedure prescribed in Section 57 of the Act, and therefore, it is not mandatory to issue notice to any party before granting a temporary permit. However, the Court clarified that this does not preclude or forbid the Transport Authority from issuing a notice or considering representations, if any, are made by the interested parties.

Issues: Whether it is necessary to issue notice and hear representations from persons already providing transport facilities in the proposed area or near the proposed route before the Authority can issue a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and held that the exclusion of the procedure prescribed in Section 57 implies that notice is not required before granting a temporary permit. However, the Court emphasized that the proceedings relating to the grant of a permit are quasi-judicial in nature and must be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Therefore, in cases where there is time to hear the persons already providing transport facilities, it is expedient and proper to issue a notice to such persons and provide them an opportunity to make representations before granting the temporary permit.

Final Decision: The Court answered the question by stating that it is not mandatory to issue notice and hear representations before granting a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. However, the Court directed that all the cases be placed before a Division Bench for appropriate orders and consequential orders in light of the observations made.

Judgment

D.K.Mahajan, J.

1. This Full Bench has been constituted to determine the following questions:-

-

"Whether it is necessary in view of the provisions of Section 47, 50 and 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) to issue notice and hear any representations made by persons already providing transport facilities in the proposed area or near the proposed route before the Authority can issue a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Act?

2. Three cases were placed before me and Sandhawalia, J. for disposal, they being :

1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 122 of 1969;

2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 185 of 1968; and

3. Civil Writ No. 1386 of 1969.

It was represented at the hearing that only one point arose in all these three cases. For the appellants in L.P.A. Nos. 122 of 1969 and 185 of 1968, and for the respondent in Civil Writ No. 1386 of 1969, it was contended that the view taken against them by the learned Single Judges in the two Letters Patent Appeals was erroneous. The learned counsel for the respondents in the Letters Patent Appeals and the petitioner in Civil Writ 1386 of 1969, on the other hand, contended that, that view was correct and more so when it was based on the Full Bench decision in Ambala Ex-servicemen Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. V/s. State of Punjab, ILR (1958) Punj 1590=(1959 Punj 1 FB).

3. As we had our doubts as to the correctness of the view taken by the learned Judges in Single Bench, we decided to refer the matter to a larger Bench and that is how this Bench has been constituted.

4. It is not necessary to state the facts for it is common ground that only the question which we have now formulated arises. The matters are otherwise infructuous as the period of four months for which the temporary permits were issued has already run out. In any case, the other contentions that were raised in these cases were not disposed of by the learned Judges whose orders are under appeal. They will in any case have to be disposed of after the answer to the proposed question is given. It is maintained that though the periods of the permits have expired, the contentions raised have to be decided in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Gandhara Transport Co. Ltd. V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 1245.

5. It will be worth mentioning that on the basis of Ambala Ex-servicemen Transport Co-operative Societys case, ILR (1958) Punj 1590=(AIR 1959 Punj 1 FB) already referred to, three learned Judges of this Court while sitting in Single Bench, took the view that it was necessary to issue a notice to all those who are likely to be affected by the intended grant of a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Act and who can make a representation under Section 47, 50 or 55 of the Act. These decisions are:-

-

1. Ambala Bus Syndicate (P) Ltd. V/s. State of Punjab (1968) 70 Pun LR 330, (P.C. Pandit, J.).

2. Patiala Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, (1968) 70 Pun LR 585 (Tek Chand, J.), and

3. The Prem Bus Service (Private) Ltd. V/s. Regional Transport Authority, (1968) 70 Pun LR 613=(AIR 1968 Punj 344) (R.S. Narula J.) The correctness of these decisions is also challenged.

6. Before I proceed to examine the matter in controversy, it will be proper to briefly go through the scheme of the Act with regard to the grant of regular permits and temporary permits. Section 2(20) defines a permit. Section 2(18) defines the motor vehicle. Ss. 2(3), 2(22), 2(23) and 2(29) define contract carriage, private carrier, public carrier and stage carriage respectively. Public Service vehicle is defined in Section 2(25) as under:-

-

" Public service vehicle means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes the motor cab contract carriage, and stage carriage". The provisions dealing with the grant of regular and temporary permits are contained in Chapter IV. This Chapter starts with Section 42 and the scheme of this Chapter






























































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top