Back
P.V.DIXIT, K.L.PANDEY
DURG TRANSPORT CO. PRIVATE LTD. – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment reiterates that stay/interim orders aim to preserve the status quo existing at the time of institution of proceedings, not to create a new state of affairs. (!) - The Appellate Authority’s discretion to grant stays or interim orders must follow settled legal principles and can be interfered with under Article 227 where there is arbitrary approach or miscarriage of justice. (!) - The High Court quashes the appellate stay orders and the interim order, and stays the effect of the Regional Transport Authority’s decision until disposal of appeals, directing early disposal of those appeals. It also directs refund of security deposit. (!) - The case cites and applies the principle from Nandan Pictures Ltd. v. Art Pictures (S) and Waryam Singh v. Amarnath to justify intervention under Article 227. (!) (!) - The appellate stay order denying stay and the March 7, 1963 interim order were found unwarranted and contrary to established principles. (!) - The appellate authority’s stay decision cannot create a new state of things; instead, the court stayed the effect of the Regional Transport Authority’s decision pending appeal. (!)
( 1 ) THE circumstances in which this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India has been filed are that the petitioner-company held stage carriage permits for three routes, namely, (1) Administration Office of Bhilai Steel constructions to Sambalpur, via Durg. Balod; (2) Balod-Dhamtari via Gurur and karhibadar; and (3) Durg-Raipur. When these permits were about to expire in 1962, the petitioner filed applications for their renewal before the Regional transport Authority, Raipur. The respondent No. 3. Janata Motor Transport Cooperative society Ltd. , Durg (hereinafter referred to as the Society) also applied for the grant of fresh permits to it in respect of the routes (1) and (2) mentioned above in lieu of the permits held by the petitioner company. The applicant-company preferred objections to the grant of permits to the respondent-society, Both the renewal applications of the petitioner and the applications of the respondent No. 3 were taken up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority on 31st December 1962, and on 3rd January 1963 the said Authority made an order refusing to renew the permits of the petitioner on all the aforesa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
