Back
1950 Supreme(All) 227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sapru and V. Bhargava, JJ.
MAKHAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Appln. 200 Of 1950
Decided On : 08/16/1950
GOPALJI MEHROTRA, R.S.PATHAK
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMITS - RENEWAL - REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - MANDAMUS - WRITS - CONSTITUTION OF AUTHORITY - MONOPOLY - STATE BUSES - DISCRIMINATION - EQUALITY BEFORE LAW - NATURAL JUSTICE - VALIDITY OF NOTICES - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS - APPLICANT NEVER HELD REGULAR PERMIT - INVALIDITY OF NOTICES - APPLICANT NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were owners of motor buses plying on highways. They had applied for renewal of their permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) issued notices to the applicants informing them that the U.P. Government Roadways would take over the route and that they should stop plying their vehicles. The applicants stopped plying their buses but their applications for renewal of permits were not considered by the RTA. They filed applications in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the RTA to consider their applications and other reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the RTA had not been acting in a proper manner in regard to the applications. It was incumbent on the RTA to consider the applications in accordance with the law laid down by the Court and the observations made by the Full Bench in regard to the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the rights of the parties. The Court found that the RTA had been following obstructionist or dilatory tactics. The Court also held that the notices issued by the RTA were invalid and that the RTA was not justified in linking the applications of the applicants with the other 4000 applications received by it under Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court further held that the applicant who had never held a regular permit was not entitled to any relief.
Issues: 1. Whether the RTA had been acting in a proper manner in regard to the applications for renewal of permits? 2. Whether the notices issued by the RTA were valid? 3. Whether the RTA was justified in linking the applications of the applicants with the other 4000 applications received by it under Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? 4. Whether the applicant who had never held a regular permit was entitled to any relief?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The RTA had not been acting in a proper manner in regard to the applications for renewal of permits. It was incumbent on the RTA to consider the applications in accordance with the law laid down by the Court and the observations made by the Full Bench in regard to the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the rights of the parties. The Court found that the RTA had been following obstructionist or dilatory tactics. 2. The notices issued by the RTA were invalid. 3. The RTA was not justified in linking the applications of the applicants with the other 4000 applications received by it under Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 4. The applicant who had never held a regular permit was not entitled to any relief.
Final Decision: The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the RTA to consider the applications of the applicants in accordance with law. The Court also held that the notices issued by the RTA were invalid and that the RTA was not justified in linking the applications of the applicants with the other 4000 applications received by it under Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court further held that the applicant who had never held a regular permit was not entitled to any relief.
( 1 ) THE reliefs sought by the 12 applicants before us in these 12 applications are that this Court may be pleased to issue:
(a) a writ in the nature of mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to accept, entertain, hear and determine the applications of the petitioners for the renewal of their permits according to such of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as are valid and to issue the necessary quota of petrol for the continuance of their business of plying their, vehicles,
(b) a writ in the nature of mandamus to the opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 directing them to withdraw the notices issued by them to the applicants on 21-6-1949 and on 25-11-1949, (c) a writ in the nature of mandamus to the opposite party 1 directing it not to introduce or ply on hire its Roadways on the Saharanpur-Hardwar route unless authorised by a valid law (d) a writ in the nature of mandamus to the opposite parties to properly constitute the Regional Transport authority according to the valid provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, and (e) a writ in the nature of certiorari and such other suitable writ or writs, directions or orders as this Court may, in the interest of justice, deem necessary in the circumstances of the case to the opposite parties. There is a prayer for the award of costs also.
( 2 ) THE facts which have given rise to these applications may be stated shortly The applicants are owners of motor buses I shall deal with their cases individually, but for the broad facts I shall rely upon the statement of facts as given by and agreed to by the parties in the affidavit filed in support of application No. 189 of 1950, namely, that of Makhan Lal. The applicants ply buses on the highways indicated in their affidavits. The case of Makhan Lal is that he had his principal place of business in the Meerut Region. He entered the transport business in 1942 and started carrying passengers on hire by means of a stage carriage by employing motor vehicle no. USV 59. This motor vehicle was, prior to his taking over the business in 1942, under the ownership of another proprietor who had been granted a permanent permit no 391 under the Motor Vehicles act,1939. The motor vehicle USV 59 was later replaced by the applicant on 11-5-1950 by motor vehicle USA 1589. The permanent permit issued to his transferor was valid up to 1943 and it was renewed on an application made by the applicant to the Regional Transport Authority up to 1946. On the expiry of the above regular permit the applicant made an application for its renewal and enclosed with that application a non-judicial stamp of Rs. 5 Instead of granting a regular permit the Regional Transport Authority issued to him a temporary permit. Subsequently on the expiry of the temporary permit which had been issued in lieu of renewal, temporary permits continued to be issued to him right up to the end of 1949. In the temporary permits issued to him in lieu of renewals, it is clearly stated that as a permanent permit no. 391 was already held by the permit holder, no fee prescribed by the rules for granting temporary permits was being charged from the applicant.
( 3 ) ON 21-6-1949 the applicant was served with a notice by the Secretary, Regional Transport authority, meerut, This notice was to he following effect:
"you are hereby informed that the secretary, U. P. Government Roadways, Dehra Dun, has informed that M. R. W. is going to take over the route of Saharanpur. Hardwar with effect from 1-8-1949. You are therefore required to stop plying your vehicles with effect from the midnight of 31-7-1949. "
( 4 ) ACTUALLY, however, the U. P. Government were not able to put any buses on the route at the time indicated in the notice with result that the applicant continued to ply his motor vehicle without any interference on the basis of temporary permits in lieu of renewal.
( 5 ) ON 25-11-1949 a fresh notice no 381/1, dated 25-11-1949 was issued by the Secretary, regional Transport Authority, Meerut,
