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

1963 Supreme(All) 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. Bhargava and B. D. Gupta, JJ.
MAGAN DEVI - Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL - Respondents
Special Appeal 345 Of 1962
Decided On : 01/28/1963

Advocates Appeared:
S.C.KHARE

The omission to make the declaration required in an application for a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is a matter of substance and not a mere matter of form or technicality.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - S. 134(2) - APPLICATION FOR PERMIT - DECLARATION - OMISSION TO MAKE - EFFECT - FAILURE OF JUSTICE.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Smt. Magan Devi, applied for a permit to run a stage carriage on the Moradabad-Kashipur route. The Regional Transport Authority granted her the permit, but on appeal, the State Transport Authority (Tribunal) set aside the order and directed that the permit be issued in favor of Kali Charan Singh, respondent No. 3. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the Tribunal had given two reasons for setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority: (1) that the appellant had no experience in the line and that it was difficult for her to supervise the operation of the vehicle, and (2) that the appellant had not made the declaration required in her application.

Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the appellant had no experience in the line and that it was difficult for her to supervise the operation of the vehicle. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the appellant had not made the declaration required in her application.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding that the appellant had no experience in the line and that it was difficult for her to supervise the operation of the vehicle was based on evidence and was not open to scrutiny by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. 2. The High Court held that the declaration required in the application consisted of two parts: (1) a verification of the correctness of the statements made in the application, and (2) an agreement that the terms of the application shall be conditions of any permit issued to the applicant. The High Court found that the appellant had not signed or thumb-marked the declaration, and that this was a matter of substance and not a mere matter of form or technicality.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs.

BHARGAVA, J.


( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Smt. Magan Devi against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court dismissing her petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which she had challenged an order of the State Transport Authority (Tribunal), Uttar Pradesh.

( 2 ) THE appellant was one of the applicants for a permit tor running a stage carriage on moradabad -- Kashipur route. She presented an application accompanied by answers to a questionnaire that had been issued by the Regional Transport Authority and an affidavit in support of the answers to the questionnaire. The Regional Transport Authority sanctioned a permit in favour of the appellant. One other applicant was Kali Charan Singh, respondent No. 3 in this special appeal. His application for grant of a permit was rejected. Kali Charan Singh, therefore, appealed to the State Transport Authority (Tribunal ). The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Aulhority granting the permit to the appellant and instead, directed that the permit be issued in favour of Kali Charan Singh. That order was challenged by the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before I the learned Single judge. It is against the order of dismissal of that petition that the appellant has come up before us in this special appeal.

( 3 ) IT appears that the State Transport Authority (Tribunal) had given two reasons for setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a permit to the appellant Learn ed counsel appearing for the appellant has challeng ed both the reasons. One reason given by the State transport Authority (Tribunal) was that the appellant had no experience in the line and that the tribunal was further of the view that she being a lady it was difficult for her to supervise the operation of the vehicle. This reason recorded by the Tribunal is based on questions of fact found by the Tribunal and is not open to scrutiny by this court in its writ jurisdiction. It was, however, urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had committed error in recording these findings because there was no evidence before the Tribunal in that respect, fn support of this plea the appellant swore an affidavit. Kali Charan Singh has sworn a counter-affidavit stating that there was material before the Tribunal on both the points on which the Tribunal recorded the finding. According to Kali Charan Singh, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that though he appellant had received her permit in question about three or four years before the appeal was heard by the Tribunal, the permit was being misused. It was asserted in the affidavit that she was living at Bijnor and had nothing whatsoever to do with the permit. It was also stated in an earlier paragraph that she had severed all her interests in the permit and that the stage carriage was being plied by S. Autar Singh to whom the permit had been given by her. In view of this assertion in the counter-affidavit it is not possible to hold that the finding recorded by the tribunal that she had no experience in the line was not based on evidence. Similarly, the counter-affidavit shows that facts were brought to the notice of the Tribunal on the basis of which the Tribunal could record the finding that she being a lady it was difficult fof her to supervise the operation of the vehicle. The counter-affidavit shows that the Tribunals attention was drawn to the fact that she was an old lady, 60 years of age. The affidavit also mentions that she had been a school teacher and that she was permanently residing at Bijnor, which was not the place connected with the route for which the permit was issued. It is also sated in the counter-affidavit that the appellants family consists of herself and a grand-daughter only. We are unable to hold that, in these circumstances, the Tribunal committed any error of law in arriving at the finding that it was difficult for her to supervise the operatio




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