LexANWAR versus IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G - H ANWAR v. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR & ORS. AUGUST 11, 1986 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles A ct, 19 39: ·s. 68-D (-)Civil suit for injunction rest- raining proceedings before Hearing Authority-Whether maintainable. Section 68-C, occurring in Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides for puhlicatim of the scheme· where any State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in relation to any area or route be run and operated by such undertaking. Section 68-D( I) provides for filing of objections to the scheme before the State Government, s. 68-0(2) for appro"al or modification of the scheme by the State Government after giving a hearing to objectors, while s.68-0(3) states that the approved or modified scheme when published shall become final. Before the Hearing Authority could give its approval, the peti- tioner in the Special Leave Petition, a stage carriage permit holder, who had earlier filed objections to the scheme published under s. 68-C, filed a civil suit for declaration that the said scheme was illegal, void and ultra vires and for an injunction. It was contended by the defendants-res- pondents that the suit was not maintainable since the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in such matters was impliedly barred. During the pen· dency of that suit the petitioner filed an application before the Civil Court for staying the hearing of the suit till the disposal of a special leave petition before the Supreme Court in which question relating to the maintainability of suits of similar nature was involved. The Court declined to grant the request and fixed the suit for arguments. The revision to the District Judge and the writ petition to the High Court preferred by the petitioner were dismissed. In the special leave petition to the Court on the question: Whether a suit is maintainable in a Civil Court for an injunction restraining the Hearing Authority nuder s. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act from pro- 540 ~- I ANWAR v. IST ADDL. JUDGE 541 ceeding with the hearing and approving the scheme. A Dismissing the special leave petition, HELD: The Civil Judge was right in dedining to stay· further proceedings in the suit. This is a ·suit which should have been rejected at the threshold under Order 7 rule I I of the Code of Civil Procedure. on B the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action. [546F-G] The Jurisdiction conferred on the hearing authority under s. 68- D of the Motor Vehicles Act is exclusive in character and it is not open to a civil court to issue an order. of injunction restraining the said authority from proceeding with the hearing of the case and exercising C itS statutory functions. [545H; 546A] Whenever a statute uses the expression that a decision of an authority shall be final, the jurisdiction of a civil court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the decision is taken away. The civil courts then have jurisdiction only to examine whether ·the provisions of the D statute have not hem complied with or the tribunal had or had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Their jurisdiction is barred insofar as merits of the case is concerned. [546B;D-E] In the instant case the scheme had been duly published under s 68-C by an authority which had the power to·publishit and the author- ~ ity which was hearing the case under s. 68-D had the power to do so.All the contentions urged in the plaint related to the merits of the scheme and the desirability of bringing ttie scheme into force and these can be raised by an aggrieved person before the Hearing Authority under s. 68-D of the Act. It is for the Hearing Authority to consider the objec- tions and to pass appropriate orders thereon. [546B-D] F ' Parliament has created a special inachinery by the provisions con- tained in Chapter IV A of the Act for bringing into force an approved or modified scheme which would have the effect of excluding completely or partially other persons from operating motor service vehicles on any route or in any area. The very object of enacting that Chapter can be G frustrated by interested parties by resorting'to a civil court with the sole purpose of delaying the implementation of a scheme if suits as in the instant case are allowed to be entertainetl. [545C-D; 546E-F] H.C. Nara
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.