Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
DURG TRANSPORT CO.PRIVATE LTD. - Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 71 Of 1963
Decided On : 04/11/1963
The principle that a stay order or an ad interim injunction is issued to maintain and preserve the status quo existing at the time of the institution of the proceedings cannot be doubted. The real point, which has to be decided when an application for stay or for a temporary injunction is made, is not how the question ought to be investigated; but it is whether the matter should n0t be preserved in status quo until the question can be finally disposed of. A stay order or an order of injunction is not granted to disturb the status quo. It is no doubt granted to restore the status quo. It is never granted to establish a new state of things differing from the 'state which existed at the date when proceedings' were instituted. AIR 1956 Cal. 428 relied on. [Para 4
(2) Constitution of India-Art 227-power of superintandence-grant or refusal to grant stay order-discretion when may be interferred with. It is no doubt in the discretion of the Appellate Authority whether to grant a stay or make any interim order in an appeal pending before it. But the discretion has to be exercised according to settled legal principles and not contrary to them. In making the impugned orders the Appellate Authority approached the matter entrusted to it in an arbitrary manner and against all legal principles.
The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not restricted to cases of non-exercise or illegal exercise of jurisdiction but extends also to cases where there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice because a Court of tribunal has approached the matter entrusted to it in an arbitrary manner, and may be utilised for correcting miscarriages of justice which have been occasioned by errors of law or procedure which cannot be corrected otherwise. AIR 1951 SC 215 relied on. [Para 7
[Also see 1963 JLJ-SN 215]
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 aforesaid routes and granting permits to the respondent-society for administration Office of Bhilai Steel Constructions to Sambalpur route and Balod-Dhamtari route on the condition that the society should "produce two new vehicles not later than 28th February 1963 and commence the service from 4-3-1963" The regional Transport Authority also made an order on that date inviting applications for Durg-Raipur route in respect of which the petitioner's application for renewal was rejected.
( 2 ) THE petitioner then filed three separate appeals before the State Transport appellate Authority against the rejection by the Regional Transport Authority of the renewal applications, grant of permits to the respondent-society for two routes, and the invitation of fresh applications for the third route. The appeals are still pending before that Authority. After the filing of the appeals, the petitioner applied to the Appellate Authority for interim order staying the operation of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority with regard to the grant of permits to the respondent-society and inviting fresh applications for Durg-Raipur route On 14th January 1963, the Appellate Authority stayed the operation of the Regional transport Authoritys order inviting fresh applications. It, however, refused to stay the operation of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority granting permits to the respondent-society taking the view that as the petitioner had not filed any copy of the order of the Regional Transport Authority there was nothing which could be legally stayed. The petitioner again moved for the issue of an interim stay order after filing copies of the order of the Regional Transport Authority. These applications were also rejected by the State Transport Appellate Authority on 8th february 1963 on the ground that the petitioner's prayer for stay had already been considered before, that is, on 14th January 1963 and that there was no ground for varying that decision of rejection. The respondent-society also preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of the Regional Transport Authority assailing the legality of the condition imposed by that Authority that the society should produce two new vehicles before 28th February 1963. That appeal is also pending before the appellate Authority After the filing of that appeal, the society applied for an interim order so as to enable it to operate the services on the routes in respect of which the Regional Transport Authority had taken a derision to grant permits to the societyon the fulfilment of the condition of production of new vehicles with two buses of 1962-model which were in its possession. On 7th March 1963 the appellate Authority made an interim order in the appeal preferred by the society direc
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
