ABDUL GAFOOR versus STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 22-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
909 
respondent no. l's predecessor-in-interest was not 
r96r 
avoided by the khot, and therefore validly conveyed 
.. , . 
.. 
· I 
h" 
C 
I 
"ti 
d t th 
J · 
Da)l Rnshna)l 
tit e to 1m. 
onsequent y no t1 e passe .o 
e Pam- Desai Tambulkar 
tiff under the sale deed in his favour as his transferor 
v. 
had no title. In either case the plaintiff fails to prove Ganesh Vishnu 
his title to the land in suit. The dismissal of his suit 
Hulkarni 
is therefore correct. 
We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
ABDUL GAFOOR 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. W ANCHOO, K; C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Motor Transport-Scheme published and approved-Permits-
Application for by State Transport Undertaking-Publicatio1t of 
application and notice of date for making representation by other 
Transport Services, if necessary-Motor V chicles Act, I939 (IV of 
I939), ss. 68-C, 68-F (I), Ch. IV-A. 
After a scheme was published by the Mysore Transport 
Undertaking under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, r939, and 
approved by the State Government the State Transport Under-
taking made applications for permits under s. 68-F(r) of the 
Act to the Regional Transport Authority but before the permits 
were granted the secorid respondent made an application for a 
Writ of Certiorari prohibiting the Regional Transport Authority 
from dealing with the second respondent's application for per-
mit unless and until they were duly publishe<l and notice was 
given to him for making representations. The contention on 
his behalf was that the publication of the applications with 
notice of the date for submitting the representations \.Vas neces-
sary under s. 57(3) Ch. IV of the Act and that he was entitled to 
notice as the Regional Transport Authority acted in a quasi-
judicial capacity while dealing with applications for permits. 
Held, that when a scheme prepared and published under 
s. 68-C has been approved and an application has been made in 
pursuance of the scheme and in the proper manner as specified 
in Ch. IV nothing more remains to be decided by the Regional 
Raghubrir 
Dayal]. 
Aprit Ia, 
910 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
x96x 
Transport Authority and it has no option to refuse the grant of 
the permit. The nature of the matter dealt under :s. 68-F(1) 
Abdul Gafoor is such as does not attract the provisions of s. 57(3) which lays 
v. 
down certain duties on the Regional Transport Authority when 
State of Mysore it considers an application for a permit. The provisions of 
s. 57(3) have nothing to do with the matters dealt with by 
s. 68-F(l). 
Srinivasa Reddy v. State of Mysore, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 130, 
referred to. 
When taking action under s. 68-F(1) the Regional Tran-
sport Authority does not exercise any quasi-judicial function 
and acts wholly in a ministerial capacity . . 
ORIGINAL JuRISDICTrnN: Petition No. 109 of 1961. 
Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of 
India for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. 
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, B. R. L. 
Iyengar and K. P. Bhat, for the petitioner. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Gopalakrishnan and 
T. M. Sen, for the respondents. 
1961. April 12. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Das Gupta ]. 
DAS GUPTA, J.-The petitioner, who is the proprie-
tor of the Shaheen Motor Service, used to ply a motor 
bus for hire on the route Archalli to Saravanabelgola 
in Hassan District in the State of Mysore. A scheme 
under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 ha v-
ing been published by the Mysore Transport Under-
taking, the petitioner as ohe of the persons affected 
thereby filed objections to the scheme before the State 
Government under s. 68-D{l) of the Act. The State 
Government however after considering the objections 
and hearing the petitioner approved the scheme, sub-
ject to a slight modification with which we are not con-
cerned. This approval was given on December 22, 1959. 
In pursuance of this approved scheme the State Trans-
port Undertaking-the 2nd respondent before us-
made applications for permits but before the Regional 
Transport Authority could issue such permits the pre-
sent petition was filed praying, in the first place, for a 
writ of certiorari to quash the scheme and some con-
sequential directions, and secondly for a writ of 
J 
I 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
911 
"prohibition" to the Regional Transport Authority, 
r96r 
Hassa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.