LexGANDHARA TRANSPORT CO. LTD. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
Octihu1 81.
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUP11.
GANDHARA TRANSPORT CC>. LTD.,
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB. AND OTHE],lS
(B. P. SINir.A., c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and
J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Stage
Garria{je-Temporary
permit-Application
for
renewal-Grant of regular permit-Validity-Motor VeMclu
Act, 1939 (4of1939), 1947, 57, 58, 62.
By an order of the Minister in charge of the Transport
Department, Punjab State, a temporary permit was granted
to M for plying vehicles on the route indicated in the permit.
When the period of the temporary permit expired M applied
to the Regional Transport Authority for renewal of the permit.
The Regional Transport Authority issued a
notic~ inviting
objections "regarding the further renewal of the permits for a
period of three years on regular basis in favour of M." The
appellants and oihers filed objections but M was granted a
regular permit for a period of three years. On 'appeal, the
Provincial Transport Controller quashed the
ord~. on the
ground that M had merely applied for renewal of the temporary
permit, that the procedure adopted for granting a P,ermit to
M did not conform to the provisions of the law and that,
therefore, the order renewing a temporary perihit and making
it a permit to ply a stage carriage for. three years was invalid.
But the 6rder of the Transport Controller was set aside by the
Secretary, Transport Department. The appellants then moved
the High Conrt of Punjab by a petition under Art. 226 of
the Constitution of India for quashing tht order of the secre-
tary, but the High Court rejected the application on the view
that for adjudicating on the merits of the claims for and
again8t the grant of the permit the authorities under the
Motor Vehicles Act were the proper authorities.
Held, that the order of the Regional Transport Authority
granting a regular permit to M was unla,vfu] as it was vitiated
by grave errors of procedure. The Transport
Author~ty ( 1) had
entertained an application for a rene\val of a terilporary permit
which was not contemplated by any provision of the Motor
Vehicli;s Act, 1939, (2) had invited objections t6 the application
as one for renewal for three years on regular basis, the:rcby
misleading parties desiring to enter into competition, and
_J
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
801
(3) had failed to apply its mind to matte1s which had to
be considered under s. 47 of the Act.
HeW,, further, that the order passed by the High Court
should be set aside and the order of the Transport Authority
declared unlawful, though the period of the regular permit had
expired in the meantime, because otherwise when making fresh
applications for permit, M would be getting the benefit of the
proviso to s. 58 (2). which was available only to those having
lawful permits.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 200 of 1962.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
March 15, 1960, of the Punjab High Court, Chandi-
garh, in Civil Writ No. 315of1960.
Bishan Narain, Daya
Swarup Nehra
and
Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
K. L. Gosain, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta,
for respondent No. 3.
1962. October 31. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
SHAH, J.-By order dated October 23, 1956,
the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, granted
a permit to one Manohar Singh for plying a staie
carriage on the Bhatinda Khera (Via Bajekhanna)-
Jaitu-Kot-Kapura route which was about 55 miles
long. This route covered 35 miles of the Bliatinda-
Kot-Kapura-Faridkot route for which the appellants,
M/s. Gandhara Transport Co. Ltd., held permits for
plying their vehicles. In appeal against the order
passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the
appellate authority cancelled the permit in favour of
Manohar Singh, but the order of the Appellate
Authority was set aside by the Minister in-charge of
the Transport Department, Punjab State, in revision,
and it was directed that a fresh temporary permit be
granted to Manohar Singh for plying vehicles on
the route for which he had been given a permit. The
appellants then preferred a petition under Art. 226
1962
Grmdlmr• r,..,,.,,_
Co., Ltd.
v.
Stall •f PllJ!iah
Shah, J,
1902
•Gandhora Tronspo1 t
Co., Ltd.
v.
Sl4te of Punjab
Shah, J,
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l96g] SUPP.
of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab,
challenging the validity of the order passed by the
Minister. Before this writ petition coExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.