AJANTHA TRANSPORTS (P) LTD. COIMBATORE ETC. versus M/S. T. V. K. TRANSPORTS, PULAMPATTI, COIMBATORE, DISTT. ETC.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 166 · Decided: 24-09-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

166 
AJANTHA TRANSPORTS (P) LTD. COIMBATORE ETC. 
v. 
M/S .. T. V. K. TRANSPORTS, PULAMPATTI, COIMBATORE, 
DISTT. ETC. 
September 24, 1974 
IH. R, KHANNA, M. H. BEG.AND v. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act 1939!-.S. 47-Scope df. 
Decisions of this Court hav1~ made it clear that an exercise of the permit 
issuing power, under s. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, must rest on facts and 
· circumstances relevant for . decision on the question of public interest which 
has. to be always placed in the forefront in considering applications for grant 
of permits. Consideration of matters which are not relevant to ·or are foreign 
to the scope of powers conferred by s. 47 will vitiate the grant of the permit. 
A fact which, in certain circumstances, is relevant for a ·decision on what, 
the public interest demands may become irrelevant where in other 
circum· 
stances; it is not connected with such public interest. Every class of consideration 
specified in s. 47 (I) of the Act is correlated to the interests of public gene· 
rally. 
Section. 47(1 )(a) gives the dominant purpose and sub-els. (b) to (f) 
are only its sub-categories or illustrations. If any matter taken into considera· 
lion is not shown to be correlated to the dominant purpo_sc or, the relationship 
ot the effect of a particular fact, which has operated in favour of grant is such; 
as to show that it is opposed, on the fa~ of it, to public interest, the grant will 
be bad. The power to grant permits under s. 47 of the Act is limited to 
the purpose for which it is meant to be exercised. Considerations which are 
relevant for applying Articles 14 and 19( 1 )(g) of the Constitution could not 
be foreign to the SCOPe of s. 47(1 )(a). [178 D-GJ 
All powers conferred by the Act including those given by s. 47 must be 
deemed to be> confined to the limits· imposed by constitutional guarantees to 
citizen~. Hence, the manner in which a grant would affect guaranteed funda• 
menta I rights Of citi~ns could also be considered. Even where powers to 
be exercised by authorities which are orpns of the State, are not clearly 
•fined, the Constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) 
of the . Constitution would certainly limit the scope •nd regulate tho exercise 
of much powers. [177 C-D] 
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. M4ngrulp/r Jt. Motor 
Service (P) Ltd. &: Ors. [1971] Supp. t: S.C.Jl. S6i @ 570; Patlala 
Bui 
(Slrhlnd) Pvt. L1d. v. Stat,~ Transport Appellate Tribunal Pun/ab & Ors. AIR 
1974 SC 1174 @ 1177 folloWl:d. 
Pal Singh v. State Transport Aut/1orlty Trib1ma/ rJ.P. and Ors. A.I.R. 1957 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
All p. 254 (ii! 256 referred to. 
H 
The obser\iations of Andhra Pradesh High Court in M /s. N: S. Ghouse Mia/1 
& Abdullaha. Shariff v. Regional Transport A11thorit)', Cuddapah AIR 1963 A.P. 
B 
c 
0 
E 
G 
H 
AJANTHA TRANSPORTS V. T. V. K. TRANSPORTS 
167 
263 @. 266 to the effect that even matters not specified in the section .can be 
ta~en mto account must therefore, be understood to 111ean that powers con-
tamed m. s. 47 of the Act as well as the rule-making powers of the State must 
be ex~rc1sed conformably with the Constitutional guarantees given to citizens 
by articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution, and, if this is all that is meant 
by the observation, the view is unobjectionable. [177B; CJ 
(.1) Therefore, the relevance of the previous possession or grant of a permit 
appears only when other facts and circumstances, connectinl! it with, and show-
ing either the adverse or beneficial effects of its impact, m a particular case, 
on the interests o.f the public are shown to exist. 
Unless and until these other 
facts . and circumstances, indicating the nexus or connection with 
the 
public 
interest, appear, such a fact, by itself, should not affect an application for a 
permit : and [180 C-D] 
(2) the weight to be attached to such a consideration will e>byiously depend 
upon the totality cif all such facts and circumstances viewed in a proper pers-
pective. [I SOD] 
· 
In C.A. 1402 of 1974 the Regional Tran ;port Authority granted a stage car-
riage permit to ihe appellant. 
On appeal the State Appellate Tribunal set 
aside the claim of the respondent on the ground imer alia that the appellant was 
a recent grantee and that it had three permits whereas the respondent had only a 
single permit. The High Court rejected the revision petition of the appellant 
under s. 115 C.P.C. 
Aliowing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) Ord

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.