Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Chail Behari Lal Saxena
  • Standing Counsel
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. M.C. Desai
Acts
  • section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act
  • Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
  • SECTION 64 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
  • provisions of section 57(3).4.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Chail Behari Lal Saxena
  • Standing Counsel
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. M.C. Desai
Acts
  • section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act
  • Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
  • SECTION 64 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
  • provisions of section 57(3).4.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Desai, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a judgment of M.L. Chaturvedi rejecting the appellant's petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to quash an order of the State Transport Authority, U.P. (dated 5/6 March 1954) and to compel the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Kanpur, to decide and renew two permanent permits held by the appellant for the Tirwa–Debiapur route.

The RTA first opened the route in 1951 and invited applications. The appellant applied for two permits; Shyam Sunder applied for one. The appellant's applications were published in the gazette on 28-4-1951; Shyam Sunder's on 17-3-1951. At an RTA meeting on 16/17 May 1951, two permits were granted to the appellant and one to Shyam Sunder, each valid for three years.

Appeals were filed against those RTA orders. While the appeals were pending, the appellant sought renewal of his permits on 1/2 March 1954 (as their term neared expiry); Shyam Sunder also applied for renewal. On 5/6 March 1954 the State Transport Authority dismissed the appeals but held the permits had been illegally granted because the RTA had considered the appellant's applications within 30 days of their publication contrary to section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Transport Authority directed the RTA not to renew the permits automatically but to invite fresh applications and to consider them in strict conformity with section 57(3).

Pursuant to that direction, the RTA on 1 July 1954 dismissed the appellant's renewal applications (and Shyam Sunder's). The appellant and Shyam Sunder applied for fresh permits; on 19/21 May 1955 the RTA dismissed those applications as it had abolished the Tirwa–Debipur route. An appeal from that dismissal was pending and not part of the present dispute.

The appellant's writ sought quashing of the State Transport Authority's March 1954 direction and an order to the RTA to re-decide and grant renewal of the permits. The single judge dismissed the writ, and the present appeal follows from that dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the State Transport Authority's order of 5/6 March 1954 directing the Regional Transport Authority not to renew the appellant's permits automatically but to invite fresh applications (because the permits were illegally granted) was lawful.
  2. Whether permits that had been illegally granted (because considered within 30 days of publication in breach of section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act) could validly be renewed under section 58(2).
  3. Whether the Regional Transport Authority was competent to dismiss an application for renewal on the ground that the original permit was illegally granted, and whether the appellant was entitled to mandamus compelling renewal or reconsideration in his favour.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Shyam Sunder Lal v. State of U.P., Misc. Writ No. 83 of 1955 (Dated 12-7-1955) (All) Recorded a view by our brother Gopalji Mehrotra that a Regional Transport Authority is not competent to dismiss an application for renewal on the ground that the original permit was illegally granted (i.e., that renewal refusals must be confined to grounds enumerated in section 47). The present court considered that view and disagreed. The court held that the RTA could dismiss renewal applications where the original permit was illegal and that the RTA was bound to comply with directions of the State Transport Authority given in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds by reference to the statutory scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act and to the factual sequence recorded in the appellate decision of the State Transport Authority.

  1. Mandatory nature of section 57(3): The court treated the provision that an application must be fixed for consideration on a date at least 30 days after publication as mandatory and jurisdictional. The RTA had no power to dispose of an application within 30 days of publication.
  2. Application to the facts: The appellant's applications were indisputably considered and allowed by the RTA within 30 days of publication; therefore those permits were illegally granted. The court accepted that conclusion and agreed that the State Transport Authority could legitimately declare the permits null and void.
  3. Exercise of appellate discretion by the State Transport Authority: Rather than cancelling and ordering immediate cessation of operation, the State Transport Authority—while declaring the permits illegal—allowed the appellant to continue to ply for the remaining term (a temporary indulgence) and directed the RTA not to treat the situation as giving the appellant any entitlement to renewal; instead, fresh applications were to be invited and considered in strict conformity with section 57(3).
  4. Power and propriety of the direction: The court found nothing illegal or improper in the State Transport Authority's direction. The powers exercisable under section 64 (appeals to the State Transport Authority) are not exhaustively defined in the Act, and the appellate authority's direction is binding on the RTA.
  5. Relationship between sections 47 and 58: Section 58(2) contemplates renewal being processed "as if" it were an application for a permit, and section 47 enumerates matters to be considered when granting/refusing permits. However, section 58(2) presupposes that the permit sought to be renewed was validly granted and remains operative until expiry.
  6. Effect of cancellation on renewal: Once a permit has been cancelled because it was illegally granted, there can be no renewal of what no longer exists. The court emphasized that nothing that does not exist can be renewed; the illegality of the original grant removes any entitlement to renewal.
  7. Competence of the RTA to dismiss on grounds of illegality: The court disagreed with the earlier view attributed to Gopalji Mehrotra (in Shyam Sunder Lal) that the RTA could not dismiss a renewal application save on grounds enumerated in section 47. The court held that section 47 is not exhaustive of matters that may be considered and that the illegality of the original permit is a material consideration—indeed a decisive one—when an application for renewal is before the RTA. Additionally, the RTA was bound to follow the State Transport Authority's express direction to treat the appellant as a fresh applicant.
  8. Remedies and finality: Because the RTA had already rejected the renewal applications and no certiorari was sought against that rejection, the applications were no longer pending and mandamus could not properly be issued to compel contradictory relief. The RTA's orders rejecting renewal were correct in law because the permits were illegal and thus not renew able.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is dismissed.

Implications:

  • The State Transport Authority's order of 5/6 March 1954 directing that the appellant's illegally granted permits not be renewed automatically but that fresh applications be invited was lawful and binding on the Regional Transport Authority.
  • The appellant's permits, having been declared illegal because they were granted in breach of section 57(3), could not be renewed under section 58(2); renewal presupposes a valid, operative permit at the time of renewal.
  • The Regional Transport Authority was competent and, under the circumstances, obliged to dismiss the appellant's renewal applications on the ground of illegality and in compliance with the State Transport Authority's direction; consequently no mandamus could issue to compel renewal.
  • No broader or new principle of law was asserted to be laid down by the court beyond applying the statute and upholding the binding nature of appellate directions; the decision's direct consequence is limited to the parties (the appellant's renewal claim fails and the RTA's dismissal stands).
V.B.B

Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Show full summary ...

    Pal Sing v. State Transport Authority Tribunal U.P And Others Opposite Parties.

    Desai, J.:— This is an appeal from a judgment of our brother M.L Chaturvedi rejecting the appellant's petition for a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated March, 5/6, 1954 passed by the State Transport Authority U.P respondent no. 1 on appeal and a writ of mandatmus directing the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, to decide the appellant's application dated March 1 and 2, 1954, for renewal of two permanent permits granted to him and directing it to renew the permits in preference to issuing fresh permits to others.

    2. The permits in dispute are for the route Tirwa-Debiapur. The Regional Transport Authority decided to open this route for the first time in 1951 and invited applications for permits. The appellant applied for two permits and one Shyam Sunder also applied for one permit. The applications of the appellant were published in the gazette as required under section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. IV of 1939) on 28-4-1951 while the application of Shyam Sunder was published in the gazette on 17-3-1951. These applications were considered by the Regional Transport. Authority at a meeting held by it on May 16/17, 1951 and it granted two permits to the appellant and one permit to Shyam Sunder, the permits being valid for three years. Somebody filed appeals against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority granting permits to the appellant and Shyam Sunder and they were disposed of by the State Transport Authority U.P While the appeals were pending the appellant on March 1/2, 1954 applied for renewal of the two permits because their term was about to expire and Shyam Sunder also applied for renewal of his permit. Both the appeals were disposed of by the State Transport Authority on 5/6-3-1954. They were dismissed but the permits were held to have been illegally granted on the ground that the applications were considered by the Regional Transport Authority within 30 days of the dates on which they were published. Under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an application must be considered by the Regional Transport Authority on a date at least 30 days from the date on which it is published. The applications of the appellant were undoubtedly considered and allowed by the Regional. Transport Authority within 30 days of the date on which they were published in the gazette but not that of Shyam Sunder.

    3. The State Transport Authority probably was mis-informed that Shyam Sunder's application also was considered within 30 days from the date of its publication. Since the term of the permits was about to expire the State Transport Authority decided not to disturb operation of the permits notwithstanding their being illegally granted and directed the Regional Transport Authority not to renew them automatically but to invite fresh applications after informing the applicants and consider them in strict conformity with the provisions of section 57(3).

    4. This is the order that the appellant challanges in this writ petition. On the basis of this order the Regional Transport Authority on 1-7-1954 dismissed the appellant's applications for renewal of his permits dated March 1/2-1954. It also dismissed the application of Shyam Sunder for renewal of his permit. The appellant and Shyam Sunder applied for fresh permits also for the same route but on May 19/21, 1955 they were dismissed by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that it had abolished the route Tirwa-Debipur, and was not going to issue any permits for it. An appeal from the dismissal of that application is pending before the State Transport Authority and we are not concerned with it.

    5. The appellant through this writ petition wants the direction issued by the State Transport Authority in its order of March 5/6, 1954 regarding non-renewal of the permits of the appellant and inviting fresh applications, to be quashed. He further wants, the Regional Transport Authority to be ordered to re-decide the appellant's applications for renewal of the permits and to grant them.

    6. Our learned brother dismissed the petition. He held that the permits were illegally granted to the appellant on 17-5-1951 because the period of 30 days had not expired since the publication of the applications, that being illegal that could not be renewed and that the Regional Transport Authority was fully justified in refusing to renew them on that ground. He upheld the order of the State Transport Authority about the invalidity of the permits and did not see anything wrong in the direction issued by it.

    7. Coming to the order of the State Transport Authority we find it an eminently just order; if anything, it was in favour of the appellant. The provision that an application should be fixed for consideration on a date not less than 30 days from its publication in the gazette is a mandatory provision and goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority which has no power whatsoever to dispose of an application within 30 days of its publication in the gazette.

    8. Undoubtedly the applications of the appellant were allowed within 30 days and this was illegal. The State Transport Authority would have been fully justified in holding that the permits were null and void with effect from 5/6-3-54 and requiring the appellant to give up plying his stage Carriages on the route. But instead of doing so it showed some favour to him by allowing him to continue plying the Stage Carriages for the remaining term because it was a matter of only a couple of months.

    9. The permits had been declared to be invalid and ceased to be operative but only the appellant had been allowed to ply his stage Carriages temporarily. The powers of the State Transport Authority in disposing of an appeal made to it under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act are not defined anywhere and there is nothing illegal or even improper in the direction issued by it to the Regional Transport Authority.

    10. If it had cancelled the permits, as it could with full justification it would, not have been necessary for it to issue any direction because the Regional Transport Authority would have been obliged to invite fresh applications for permits for the route; but since it allowed the appellant to go on plying his Stage Carriages on the route it felt the necessity of cautioning the Regional Transport Authority that this licence granted to the appellant should not be taken to mean that the permits were valid and renewable and that he could apply for renewal instead of for fresh permits.

    11. Under Section 58(2) a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. The matters to be taken into consideration by a Regional Transport Authority when deciding whether to grant or refuse a permit for a Stage Carriage are enumerated in Section 47. It is provided in section 58 that other conditions being equal, an application for renewal shall be given preference over applications for permits.

    12. It was in order to prevent the Regional Transport Authority from thinking that the appellant was entitled to this preference that the State Transport Authority directed that he was not and placed him on the same footing as a fresh applicant which he would have undoubtedly been if the permits had been expressly cancelled. Our learned brother very properly held that there was nothing in the order of the State Transport Authority to which any exception could be taken by the appellant and that no case was made out for its being quashed.

    13. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the applications for renewal but no certiorari has been sought against the order rejecting them. So long as it stands no mandamus can be issued because the applications for renewal are no longer pending before it and it cannot be compelled to pass contradictory orders. The orders passed by it on the applications also are correct. The appellant was not entitled at all to renewal because the permits granted to him were illegal and could not be renewed. Section 58(2) contemplates that the permit sought to be renewed was validly granted, and remains operative till the last date of its term.

    14. The Act provided for appeals from permits illegally granted and the appellate authority is expected to cancel them. Once a permit is cancelled no question can possibly arise of its renewal; nothing that does not exist can be renewed. The effect of the order of the State Transport Authority was only this that the appellant was permitted to ply his State Carriages upto the date of the expiry of the permits though they were invalid; it did not make them valid upto the date of their expiry and so they were not entitled to renewal. The appellant could apply for a fresh permit and this right was expressly reserved to him by the State Transport Authority (and he has exercised that right though unsuccessfully).

    15. The matters mentioned in section 47 are to be considered only when a Regional Transport Authority has to decide whether to renew a permit, that is, a permit that was granted validly. When a person applies for renewal of a permit which was invalid, the Regional Transport Authority is competent to dismiss it straightway on that ground. Shyam Sunder also filed a writ petition and it was disposed of by our brother Gopalji Mehrotra, (Vide Shyam Sunder Lal v. State of U.P Misc. Writ No. 83 of 1955 D/- 12-7-1955 (All) (A)).

    16. Our learned brother was of the view that a Regional Transport Authority is not competent to dismiss an application for renewal on the ground that the permit was illegally, granted. Section 47 refers to matters to be considered when disposing of an application for renewal of a permit; since the legislature did not contemplate an application for renewal of a permit illegally granted it did not provide expressly that such an application must be dismissed. Further section 47 lays down only that certain matters should be taken into consideration; it does not prohibit a Regional Transport Authority from taking other matters into consideration.

    17. In an application for a fresh permit there can possibly arise no question of the illegality of the permit already granted and, therefore, section 47 could not possibly mention the illegality as one of the matters to be taken into consideration. When an application for renewal is made, the illegality of the permit is undoubtedly a matter to be taken into consideration by the Regional Transport Authority and more so when the State Transport Authority in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has expressly directed it to do so.

    18. The law on the subject is not exhaustively contained in section 47; any direction given by the State Transport Authority in its appellate Jurisdiction is also to be complied with by the Regional Transport Authority. If the State Transport Authority has jurisdiction to pass an order, it must be complied with by the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore our learned brother Gopalji Mehrotra was not correct when he observed that an application for renewal cannot be dismissed except on any of the grounds mentioned in section 47, and that when a permit had been granted to the petitioner the renewal application cannot be refused on the ground that the original permit itself was illegal”. We find that the Regional Transport Authority was bound to dismiss the applications of the appellant for renewal on the ground that no question of renewal arose and that it was also bound by the direction issued by the State Transport Authority to dismiss them. No mandamus could therefore be issued against it. The appeal is dismissed.

    V.B.B

    19. Appeal dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Pal Sing v. State Transport Authority Tribunal U.P And Others Opposite Parties.
    (Nov 28, 1956)