ESSKEY ROADWAYS (FIRM) versus ANANDHAKRISHNAN BUS SERVICE

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 17-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.C. AGRAWAL

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ESSKEY ROADWAYS (FIRM) 
v. 
ANANDHAKRISHNAN BUS SERVICE 
AUGUST 17, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section 46-Grant of Stage Caniage pei• 
mit-Ciaims of candidates for award of marks-Relevant date for considering 
respective claims-it is date of co11Siderati011 and not date of application. 
The appellant along with the contesting respondent had applied for 
grant of stage carriage permit. On consideration of the respective the 
R. T .A. granted permit to the appellant awarding him 10 marks and 8 
marks to the respondent. The R.T.A. held that the date of application was 
A 
B 
c 
the relevant date for considering the respective claims of the candidates D 
for awarding marks. On appeal, the S.T.A.T. set aside the order of the RTA 
and granted the permit to the respondent taking the date of consideration 
as the r·levaot date for the purpose of considering the eligibility to grant 
the required marks. Io revision, the High Court upheld the order of the 
Appellate Authority. This appeal by special leave was filed against the 
judgment of the High Court. 
E 
The only question raised in this appeal was whether the RTA should 
consider the respective claims as on the date of consideration or as on the 
date of the application. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 The date of consideration is the relevant date for the 
purpose of considering the eligibility to grant the required marks for grant 
of permits u/s 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This declaration of law 
F 
Is confined to and peculiar of the statutory operation u/s 46 of Act 5 of G 
1958. [707-G, H, 708-A] 
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Manqrulpir It. Motor 
Service (P) Ud. & Ors., [1971] Supp. SCR 561; Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari 
& Ors, [1969] 2 SCR 507 and A.S. Ja/a/uddin v. Ba/asubramaniar Bus 
Service Pvt. Ltd. & Am: C.A. No. 161 of 1965, decided on 31- 10-1967 H 
705 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
(Supreme Court), relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 570 of 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.80 of the Madras High 
B Court in C.R.P. No. 88 of 1978. 
c 
C.S, Vaidyanathan, K. Vishwanathan and K.V. Venkataraman for the · 
Appellant. 
S. Srinivasan and Mrs. N. Annapoorani for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant along with the contesting respondent had applied for 
grant of stage carriage permit on the route from Truchirapalli to Jayankon-
dam on or before October 10, 1975. Objections have been called for on 
D October 22, 1975 and the last date to file the objection was November 10, 
1975. On consideration of the respective claims the R.T.A., Truchirappalli 
awarded to the appellant 10 marks and 8 marks to the respondent. On 
that premise RTA granted permit to the appellant. The respondent carried 
the matter in appeal to the S.T.A.T. Which by its Order dated November 
E 
14, 1977 set aside the order of R.T.A. and grated the permit io .the 
respondent. In C.R.P. No. 88/78 by Order dated March 5, 1980 the learned 
Single Judge upheld the Order of S.T.A.T. thus, this appeal by Special 
leave. 
The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is 
F 
whether the RT A should consider the respective claims as on the date of 
the consideration or as on the date of the,application. The RTA held that 
the date of application was the relevant date. But the Appellate Authority 
and the High Court found that the dat~ of the consideration was the 
relevant date. Admittedly, the respondent-partnership firm was 
G reconstituted on April 1, 1976 taking one Easwaran as a managing partner 
and it was registered on May 21, 1976 under Section 69 of the Partnership 
Act. Admittedly, the managing partner had the technical qualification as 
on the date of consideration. The managing partner being the technically 
qualified man, the respondents are entitled to the award of two more marks 
on the ground of qualifications. The Appellate Tribunal taking that fact 
H into consideration awarded 10 marks and on comparative evaluation, since 
ESSKEY ROADWAYS v. ANANDHAKRJSHNAN BUS SERVICE 
707 
the respondent by then had three permits, granted the permit to the A 
respondent. The question whether the date of consideration is the relevant 
date is no longer res imegra. This Court in Maharashtra Staie Road 
Transport Corporation v. Mangrulpir ft. Motor Service (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1971) 
Suppl. SCR 561 at 571 held tha

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