LexK. S. RAMAMURTHI-REDDIAR versus THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, PONDICHERRY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
1963
· J anwrry, 22.
656 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] \lot.
K. S. RAMA1\1URTHI-REDDIAR ·
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
PONDICHERRY & ANR.
{B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GA.JENDRAGA.DKAR,
K. N. WA.Ncnoo, K.C. DAS GUPTA.. and
!_ -
J. C. SnA.H, JJ.)
Stage Carriage Permit-Giant to nativ~ of Pondicherry-
AJJirmed by Chief Cammi'8ioner as Appellate Authority-Dis-
crimination on ground of place of birth-Jurisdiction of .Supreme
· Court-" The State"-"Under the control of Government ·of
· .. lndia"-Meaning-Constituti<m of India, Art•, 12, 15, 32, 136 ..
The petitioner, a resident of Pondicherry, .~as. an appli,
cant for a stage carriage permit, before the State Transport
authority, Pondicherry, alongwith 14 other persons.
The
Permit was granted to one Perumal Padayatchi taking into
account the fact that he was a native of Pondicherry along with
. other facts. The petitioner, whose application for the permit
was rejected, went in appeal to the Appellate Authority who
dismi!Sed the appeal. The petitioner filed a wiit petition under
Art. 32 in this Court and contended that preference on the ground
of place of birth is violative of Art. I 5 of the Constitution.
· On the dates of the orders sought to be impugned: Prindicherry
was not yet part of the territory of India, but when the peti-
tion was heard it had become part of the territory of India. It
was contended on behalf of the respondent that in view of the
observations in the decision in N. M aathan Sahib v. Chief
Commi8'ioner, [1962] Supp.
I S. C.R. 981, the writ petition
was not maintainable.
Held, that in Art. 12 the words "under the control of the
Government of India" qualify the word "authorities" ani n'Jt
the word "territory" ani:l Art. 12 gives an in:Iusive d~fi:iiti·~n·
Of the word "State".
Held, further, that if no writ could be issued at the timo.
when the order was passed for the reason that Pondicherry was
not part of India at that time, no such writ could be issued in
respect of past acts after Pondicherry had become part of India·
I S.C.R .. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
657
as. that would
con,titution.
be giving
retro<:pectiv~ ol?eration _ to··,thC~-
1?63
JanarJan Reddy v. The State, [l9j0] S. C.R. 940.
· referred to.
H,ld, aho, that judicial or qua•i-judicial authorities· out·
side the territorv of India bi.it under the administration of the
Government of India cannot be said to be.'undcr the control of
the Government of India' as the expression ''control" connotes
pr..1wer to issue directions regarding how a thing may be done by
a superior authority to_ an inft=:r ior authority, a11d in the case of a
quasi-judicial authority ,no such directions or orders could be iss-
ued .. It is only in the case of executive action that a superior auth-
. ority may direct that a p:!rt;cular thing may be done in a parti-
cular way by the subordinate authority. In the very nature of
thin.gs where rule of law prevails it is not open to a Government,
be it the Gaver.1ment of India or the Gwernmcnt of a State,· to
direct a qu:\si-jadicial or judicial a11thority to decide any parti .. =-
cufar m1tters before it in a particular manner.
-
·
N. Ma.,than Sahib v. Chief Commissioner, [1962] Supp.
IS. C.R. 931, referred to.
Held, also; that the Chief Commissioner who is the Appel-
late ·Authority in the C!\Se, fell outside the definition of 'State',
he being a quasi-judicial authority not under the control of the
Government of India and, therefore, Art .. 15 of the Constitution
did not apply to him and no protection, under Art. 15 wa•
available against the Chief Commissioner at the time the
impugned order was made.
CIVIL
APPELLATE/0RIGL"iAL
JURISDIC'l:ION:
Civil Appeal No. 569 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated
September 9, 1960, of the Chief Commissioner,
Pondicherry in Appeal No. 94 of 1960.
JVITH
\Vrit Petition No. 347 of l!J.60.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution
of India for enforcement of Fundamental Ri"ghts.
K.S. Ra.mttmurthi
Redd;ar
. ..
Tiu Chbf Commis-
1ion er, 1·ondicherry
/
•
1963
K.S. Ramdlllurllti
Rtdd1ar
T
v.
~' Cliitf Commis-
sionn, PundicAm,
W-.loo, J,
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
N. G. Glultterjee, R. K. Garg and S. G. Agar-
wa/a, for the Appellant.
G. K. Daphtary, Solic-itor-Geneml of India,
B. R. L. Iyengar and R. N. Sachthey, for respon-
dent No. I (in C. A. No. 51Hl/ul).
R. Malullinga l11er, for respondent ll<o. 2 (in
C. A. 569/ul).
N. G. ChatterjeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.