Back
1964 Supreme(MP) 126
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and Shiv Dayal, J.
SUGANCHAND RAMNARAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 360 Of 1964
Decided On : 10/20/1964
Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Ss. 57, 58 & 64 - application for renewal - rejected end the only other application for grant of permit considered after inviting further applications - inviting further application illegal.
An application for renewal of a permit was refused and the only other application for grant of permit for the same route was rejected by the RTA as barred by limitation. In appeal it was held that the application for grant of permit was not barred by limitation and the case was remanded for considering the application for grant of permit. The RTA invited fresh applications and granted permit to a third party.
Held: In view of the appellate order holding the application to be within time, the RTA should have considered that application alone on merits. The RTA was not entitled to invite fresh applications. The mere fact that the appellate order did not contain a direction that that application alone should be considered, would not empower the RTA to invite fresh applications. 1964 JLJ-SN 194, 1962 JLJ-SN 65, followed. [Para 4
(2) Constitution of India - Art, 226 - failure to raise an objection, without more - does not disentitle a party to seek relief.
The mere failure of a party to raise any objection, without more, does not preclude a party from taking that ground for attacking in appeal or in proceedings under Article 226 the order of the Regional Transport Authority. 1964 JLJ-SN 194 followed. [Para 6
( 1 ) THIS order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 229 of 1964.
( 2 ) THE petitioners in these two cases seek writs of certiorari for quashing an order, dated 16th April, 1964 of the State Transport Appellate Authority by which that authority set aside an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior, granting a stage carriage permit for Shivpuri-Vidisha via Ashoknagar route to the applicant gajendrasingh Kushwaha in Misc. Petition No. 229 of 1964 and granted a permit instead to the respondent No. 8 in each petition, namely, Shri Anandpur Trust.
( 3 ) THE material facts are that the permit for the aforesaid route was originally held by one Babulal. At the time when the renewal of Babulal's permit became due, the petitioner Messrs. Suganchand Ramnarain, in Misc. Petition No. 360 of 1964 applied for the grant of a permit to them and opposed the renewal of the permit in favour of Babulal. The Regional Transport Authority refused to renew Babulal's permit and rejected Suganchand Ramnarain's application on the ground that it was barred by time. Messrs. Suganchand Ramnarain then filed an appeal before the state Transport Appellate Authority against the order of the Regional Transport authority rejecting their application on the ground of limitation. That appeal was allowed by the appellate authority on 31st December 1962; and the Regional transport Authority was directed to consider the application of Suganchand ramnarain afresh and decide it according to law. The Regional Transport Authority instead of disposing of the application of Suganchand Ramnarain invited applications for the grant of a permit on the route and thereafter on 3rd May, 1963 the application of Suganchand Ramnarain was published along with the application of other persons including that of the petitioner Gajendrasingh kushawaha made in response to the invitation. When all these applications were taken up for consideration by the Regional transport Authority a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of Messrs. Suganchand Ramnarain that his applies ion made long before the notification published by the Regional Transport Authority inviting applications should be decided by itself as directed by the appellate authority by its order, dated 31st december, 1962. This objection was overruled by the Regional Transport Authority taking the view that there was no such direction in the order, dated 31st december, 1962 of the appellate authority and that all that was held by that order was that the application of Suganchand Ramnarain was not barred by time. The regional Transport Authority then proceeded to consider the merits of the various applicants and selected Gajendrasingh Kushawaha for the grant of a permit on the route. Thereafter, Messrs. Suganchand Ramnarain and Shri Anandpur Trust, whose applications had been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Authority against the order of the regional Transport Authority. Before the appellate authority each of the appellants urged that the permit should have been granted to them. Messrs. Suganchand ramnarain also raised in their memorandum, of appeal presented to the appellate authority the objection that the Regional Transport Authority erred in overruling their preliminary objection that their application alone should be considered. The appellate authority considered the claims of all the applicants and found that shri Anandpur Trust was better qualified than either of the present petitioners for the grant of the permit. It did not express any opinion on the contention raised by messrs. Suganchand Ramnarain in their memorandum of appeal that their application alone should have been considered and that Regional Transport authority was not justified in inviting fresh applications for the grant of a permit.
( 4 ) SHRI Dabir, learned counsel for the petitioner Messrs. Suganchand Ramnarain, argued that the Regional Transport Authori
