Back
1967 Supreme(All) 169
Allahbad High Court
S.N.DWIVEDI,GANGESHWARPRASAD
Shiv Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal - Respondent
Decided On : 12/22/1967
S.N. Kakkar and Sri Dhar, for Appellants.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 47(3) - S. 48 - S. 64-A - STAGE CARRIAGE PERMITS - FIXATION OF NUMBER - VARIATION - GRANT OF PERMITS - PROCEDURE - CONCESSION ON QUESTION OF LAW - BINDING EFFECT - ESTOPPEL.
Fact of the Case:
The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) advertised a route for four stage carriage permits. Applications were received and the RTA decided to raise the number of permits to six. Six permits were granted, two of which were not taken up and were subsequently cancelled. On appeal, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) set aside the RTA's order and directed it to fill the vacancies according to law. The appellants, who were grantees of the six permits, filed a writ petition challenging the STAT's order. The single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the order was passed upon the consent of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the concession made by the appellants' counsel before the STAT was due to an erroneous opinion on a question of law and it could not stand in the way of the appellants in getting the relief to which they may be found entitled. The Court further held that the STAT did not apply its mind to and come to any conclusion of its own on the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Abdul Mateen's case, AIR 1963 SC 64 on the order of the RTA. The Court also held that the appellants were not precluded from challenging the correctness of the order passed by the STAT.
Issues: 1. Whether the concession made by the appellants' counsel before the STAT was binding on the appellants. 2. Whether the STAT applied its mind to and came to any conclusion of its own on the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Abdul Mateen's case, AIR 1963 SC 64 on the order of the RTA.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An erroneous admission on a question of law made by a party or his agent is not binding and it does not preclude the party from making an assertion contrary to the admission and from seeking the relief to which on a proper construction of the law he is entitled. 2. The STAT did not apply its mind to and come to any conclusion of its own on the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Abdul Mateen's case, AIR 1963 SC 64 on the order of the RTA. The order of the STAT was, therefore, manifestly erroneous and it ought to have decided the appeals on merits.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed and the judgment of the single Judge was set aside. The order of the STAT dated May 15, 1963 was quashed and the Tribunal was directed to hear and decide appeals Nos. 209 of 1961 and 332 of 1961 on merits.
GANGESHWAR PRASAD, J. :- These are two special appeals against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal U. P.
2. The circumstances which led up to this petition may be briefly stated. In December 1960 Baharaich-Rupaidiha route was advertised by the Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur and applications were invited by it for permanent stage carriage permits. The route was a new one and the number of permits to be granted for it had been fixed at four. The appellants and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 applied for permit along with many other persons. The applications received in response to the advertisement came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority on April 15, 1961. On that date the Regional Transport Authority decided to raise the number of permits to be issued for the route from four to six and granted permits as follows : One permit to Shiv Singh appellant No. 1 jointly with Param Hans Singh; one permit to Narain Ram appellant No. 2; one permit to Har Saran Dass appellant No. 3; one joint permit to Mohd. Khatib Ahmad Siddiqi appellant No. 4, and Zainduddin Ahmad appellant No. 5; one joint permit to Abdul Majid and Mohammad Bashir; and one joint permit to Onkar Mal Lakshmi Narain Maheshwari. The applications of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were rejected and no permit was granted to them. The grantees of the last two permits did not, however, lift their permits which were, consequently revoked by the Regional Transport Authority on September 14, 1961. Subsequently, by a resolution dated January 8, 1962 the Regional Transport Authority deleted the name of Param Hans from the permit issued to him jointly with Shiv Singh appellant No. 1. The parties differ as to the reason for the deletion, but the position in any case was that the four permits granted for the Baharaich-Rupaidiha route came to be held by the appellants, the first three holding one permit each and the remaining two holding a joint permit.
Against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting these permits to the aforesaid ten persons in the manner indicated above two appeals were filed, appeal no. 209 of 1961 by respondent no. 3 and appeal no. 332 of 1961 by respondent no. 4. When the appeals came up for hearing before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal it appears to have been urged on behalf of the appellants that irrespective of anything else in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey, AIR 1963 SC 64 the order of the Regional Transport Authority was invalid because it could not have raised the number of permits from four to six. What the learned counsel for the respondents to the appeals actually or in effect said in regard to the above contention is a matter on which the parties are not agreed. However, by its order dated May 15, 1963 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and directed it to fill the vacancies according to law. The material portion of the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal - and that is the only portion dealing with the merits of the appeal - is as follows :
"It was argued by learned counsel for the appellants when this matter came up for hearing on the 9th May, 1963 that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 64, the order of the R. T. A. made at their meeting held on the 15th April, 1963, is invalid and should be set aside. There is no objection from the opposite party. The order of the R. T. A. is, therefore, set aside and it is directed to fill the vacancies according to law."
2A. The main grounds on which the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was challenged in the writ petition were that the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Mateen's case, AIR 1963 SC 64 was misconstrued and misapplied by the State Transpo
