K. A. NATARAJAN ETC. versus M. NAINA MOHD. & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 03-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

495 
A 
K. A. NATARAJAN ETC. 
v. 
M. NAINA MOHD. & ORS. ETC. 
February 3, 1970 
B 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J.M. SHELAT, G. K. MITTER, A.'.\. RAY 
AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Constitution of India, 
1950, Art. 136--Appeal C!gainst interlocutor) 
order-Practice of Supreme Court. 
The Regional Transport Authority granted to the respondent a permit 
to operate a bus on a route. 
The grant was set aside by the State Trans~ 
port Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by another applicant. The order 
of the S.T.A. was quashed by a Single Judge <if the High Court in a writ 
petition filed by the grantee from the R.T.A. When the matter went be-
fore the Letters Patent Bench it was observed that since only the gr;intee 
trom the R.T.A. had a valid permit it was not possible to grant any permit 
to the appellant before the S.T.A. pending the disposal of the Letters 
Patent Appeal a• only one operator could be allowed on the route. 
In the petition for special leave to appeal to this Court under Art. 136 
against the interlocutory order, on the question of the jurisdiction of the 
High C.ourt to recognise the grantee from the R.T.A. when his permit w:.i~ 
c.ancelled by the S.T.A., 
HELD : This Court \\-'Ould not go into the matter at this stage De-
cause, the appeal itself was pending before the High Court and all that 
the Bench had done was to give effect to the order of the Single Judge 
pending disposal of the appeal. [497 A-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petitions for special leave 
to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 2430, 2431, 2436 to 2438, 2442, 2443, 
2445, 2446, 24 72 and 2480 of 1969 and 3 of 1970. 
From the orders dated December 8, 1969 of the Madras High 
Court in Civil Misc. Petitions Nos. 15375 of 1969 etc. in Writ 
Appeals Nos. 519 of 1969 etc. 
K. K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioner (in 
S.L.P. Nos. 2430, 2431 and 2438 of 1969). 
S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, M. K. Ramamurthi, G. Rama-
swamy, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the petitioners (in 
S.L.P. No. 2436 of 1969). 
M. K. Ramamurthi, G. Ramaswamy, Shyamala Pappu and 
Vineet Kumar, for the petitioner (in S.L.P. No. 2437 of 1969). 
A. S. Nambiar, for the petitioner (in S.L.Ps. Nos. 2442, 2443 
and 2472 of 1969). 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970) 3 S.C.R. 
M. C. Setalv•1d, V. Subramanian and K. Jayaram, for the 
petitioner (in .S.L.P. Nos. 2445, 2446 and 2480 of 1969 and 3 of 
1970). 
Madan Mohan for resporulent No. 1 (in S.L.P. Nos. 2430, 
2431, 2436, 2437, 2438, 2442, 2443 and 2472 of 1969). 
0. C. Mathur, for respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. No. 2445 of 
1969). 
R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. No. 2480 
Of 1969). 
K. Thirumalai, A. T. M. Sampath and E. C. Agtawala, for 
respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. No. 3 of 1970). 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. 
These are petitions for special leave against 
the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras by 
which the High Court has ordered that the permits granted by the 
Regional Transport Authority will operate and not those which 
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal granted. 
The facts may be stated, taking as a sample, Special Leave 
Petition No. 2430 of 1969. The original grantee of the permit 
by the Regional Transport Authority may be described as 'A'. 
The date of the grant was November 20, 1966. 
On appeal by the 
respondent /who may be described as 'B', the State Transport 
A.ppellate'Tribunal cancelled the grant made to A by the Regional 
Transport Authority. 
This was on July 18, 1967. A writ peti-
tion was thereupon filed by A and it was a!Iowed by the _learned 
single Judge on November 4, 1969 and the order of the State 
Transport Appellate Tribunal was quashed. 
When the matter 
went before the Letters Patent Bench, it was observed that in view 
of the fact that only the grantee of the Regional Transport Autho-
rity had a valid permit, it was not possible to grant any permit to 
B who was recognised by the State Transport Appe!Iate Tribunal. 
They followed an earlier ruling ofthe court and restricted the grant 
pending disposal of the Letters Patent appeal to the grantee of the 
Regional Transport Authority who alone was permitted to operate 
on the route. It appears that only one operator could be allowed 
on this route, because of as. 47(3) determination. 
In these petiti.ons for special leave which are ex facie against 
the orders made in interlocutory proceedings, the attempt is to get 
the pemlits restored to B. It
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.