LexABDUL MATEEN versus RAM KAILASH PANDEY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
"><I .. _. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 523 industrial dispute pending: adjudication at the relevant; time, The result is that the appeal must be allowed the order passed hy the tribunal set aside and the respondent's application under s. 33-A is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dllowed. ABDUL MATEEN v. RAM KAILASH PANDEY AND OTHERS (B· P. SINHA, C. J., K. N. WANOHOO, and J. c. SH.AH, JJ.) Motor Vehicles-stage carriage permits-Applications invited by Regional Transport Authority for two vacancies- Minister of Transport gave an additional permit-Whether lega~ -Scope of s. 64-A-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (4 of 1939), as amended by Bihar Amen<lment Act No. XXVII of 1950, ss. 47, 48, 57, 64, 64-A. A new route was advertised by the Regional Transport Authority and applications were invited for two permanent stage carriage permits. The Regional Transport Authority granted the two permits to the appellant and another person. An appeal against that order failed. Sudhakar Sharma, one of the respondents, moved the High Court under Art. 226 and the order of the appellate authority was quashed. When the case went back to the Appellate Authority, the permit granted to the appellant was cancelled and was given to Sudhakar Sharma. The appellant made an application to the State Government under s. 64· ~ of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the B1har Amendment Act No. XXVII of 1950. The Minister of Transport upheld the order of the appellate authority cancelling the permit of the appellant and granting the same to Sudhakar Sharma, but granted an addi- tional permit to the appellant. Ram Kailash Pandey filed a ~rit petiOon in the Hi~h Coiµ-t challen~i~ tP.e 9rder of tll(i 190B Kirloskar fi>il Engines . v. llanmant Loxman Bibawe Gojendragadknr J. 191J2 July 31. 524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] I96S Minister of Transport. ·He-contended that the State Govern· ment had no power when dealing with an application under Ab"':l :!"'"" s. 64·A to increase tho number of permits to be granted and .Bam K ailash Pand•y the order granting the third permit to the appellant was with· out.jurisdiction. The High Gout accepted the contention and' set aside that part of the order of the Minister of Transport by which he had granted a third permit to the appellant. The appellant came to this Court by special leave. - \ Hola, that where a limit has been fixd under '- 47 (3) by the Regional Transport Authority, and thereafter the said authority proceeds to consider applications for permits under •· 48 read with •· 57, the Regional Transport Authority must confine the number or permits issued by it to those limits and on an appeal or revision by an aggrieved person, the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority must equally be con- fined to the issue of permits within the Ii mits fixed under s. 4 7 (3). The State Government cannot pass any order when e~ercislng revislonal authority which the authority whose orders the government Is revising, has no authority to pa9'. It may not be generally possit>le to conclude from the number of vacancie!I shl')wn in an advertisement that that is the number of fixed under s. 47. (3) by the Regional Transport Authority, but when it is a case of a new route which is being opened for the first time and an advertisement is issued calling for applications for such a new route specifying the number of vacancies for it, it is reasonable to infer that when the number of vacancies is specified, that sh<>Ws lhe limit which must have been decided upon by the Regi'lna\ Transpor.t Authority under•· 47(3). - , Ram Gop•l v. A.~.-t Pran-1, [l 1j9] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 692 and Arunachalam Pillai v. Sout1'arn R'lilways (Priual.e) Lid., [1960] 3 S.C.R. 764 followed. Moh>Jmma<l Luqman Sbrif v. State Transport Aulhority, A.I.R. 1961 All. 342, approved . . •· · Pho Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) v, Shri Nalhu Ram , Mir<lha, I. L. R. (1959) Raj. 120, reversed. Crv1L APPELLA.TE Ju&ISDIOTION : Civil Appeal No. 195. of 1962. . Appea.l by speoia.l leave from the judgment ,-- a.nd order dated 1961, August 24 of the Patna High Court in M. J. C. No. 126 of 1961. 1,- i- "". .. ~· '. 3 S.C.R! · SUPREME' COURT REPORTS 525 Basudeo Prasad, R, K. Garg, 8. 0 . .Agarwal and M. K. Ram:zmurthi for th~ appellant. B. D. Sharma for respondent No. 1. D. Goburdhan for respondent No. 2. 8 .. P. Verma for respondent No. 3. 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.