CUMBUM ROADWAYS (P) LTD. versus SOMU TRANSPORT (P) LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 10-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. 
A 
• 
• 
B 
• 
c 
• 
D 
E 
F 
-
• 
... 
G 
• 
• 
H 
[P. 
CUMBUM ROADWAYS (P) LTD. 
v. 
SOMU TRANSPORT (P) LTD. AND OTHERS 
December 10, 1965 
B . 
M. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J., K. N. 
WANCHOO, 
HIDAYATULLAH, 
V. 
RAMASWAMI 
AND 
P. 
SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939),-Appellate Tribunal disposing of 
seven a,pea/s against order of State Transport Authority by consolidated 
ap,.l/ate order-Only one party challenging order of Tribunal 
before 
High Court-High Court whether can ask Tribunal to rehear appea/3 of 
/lartiea which did not go to the High Court. 
The Regional Transport Authority South Arco! granted a stage car-
riage permit on the route Kumbakonam to Neiveli to the first respondent 
out of a large number of applicants. This led to seven appeals against 
1hc grant of the permit before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 
They were heard together and the Tribunal set aside the order of the 
Tranaport Authority granting the permit to the first respondent and in-
stead granted the permit to the appellant. Thereupon the first respondent 
filed a writ petition in the High Court at Madras challenging the order 
of the Appellate Tribunal. A single Judge of the High Court relying on 
this Court's decision in B. Rajagopala Naidu ''· State Transport Appel/au 
Tribunal and Ors. allowed the writ petitions. In B. Rajagopala Naidu's 
case this Court had held that Government Orde< No. 1298 issued by the 
Government of Madras under s. 43A as 
introduced by the Madras 
Amending Act No. 20 of 1948 in Motor Vehicles Act No. 4 of 1939, 
could not be issued under that section inasmuch as it purported to give 
directions in respect of matters which had been entrusted to Tribunals 
constituted under the Act and which had to be dealt with by them in a 
quasi-judicial manner. Against the 
order of the single Judge letters 
patent appeal was filed by the present appellant. 
The Division Bench 
dismissed the appeal, but remanded the case to the Appellate Tribunal 
for reconsidering the matte< in the light of the decision in B. Raiagopala 
Naidu's case. In the peculiar circumstances of the case the High Court 
further directed that all the seven appeals which had been disposed of 
by the Appellate Tribunal by a single order should be reconsidered as 
the taint affected the entire appellate order which was one. 
The appellant 
came to this Court by special leave. 
The material questions that came up for consideration were whether 
the High Court was right in remanding the case to the Appellate Tribunal 
and 
not to the Transport Authority, and whether the High Court was · 
right in asking the Appellate Tribunal to revive and re-hear all the appeals 
eTell of those parties which had not gone to the High Court . 
HELD : (i) The Appeal Court rightly pointed out that there might 
be serious public inconvenience specially in the matter of new routes if 
the order of the Transport Authority is also set aside with the result that 
such new routes would be without any transport facility. It is therefore 
always a question to be decided in each case whether the remand should 
be to the Appellant Tribunal or the Transport Authority. In most case-• 
it would be proper if the remand is made to the Appellate Tribunal. 
[11 F, OJ 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 3 S.C.R. 
(ii) Even though all the appeals with respect to one route may have 
been disposed of by a single appellate order m form, in reality the appel-
late order consists of as many orders as there are appeals disposed of 
thereby. 
In the present case if none of the parties concerned in 
the 
seven appeals had come to the High Court in writ proceedings within 
reasonable time, the order of the Appellate Tribunal would have become 
final, even though it might have been 
influenced by the Government 
Order in question. 
The High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with 
the orders of the Appellate Tribunal either in favour or against 
the 
parties which had not come to it. 
The remand was therefore to be con-
fined only to those parties which came to the High Court. (12 C-OJ 
Civ1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 907 of 
1964 and 150 and 363 of 1965. 
A 
8 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated c 
May I, 1964, October 5, 1964 and April 22, 1964, of the Madras 
High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 215 of 1962, 74 of 1964 and 
151 of 1963 respectively. 
M. N. Rangachari, M. K. Ramamurthy, R. K. Garg, D. P. 
1 
-. '~ 
' r 
• 
Singh, and S.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.