KANCHAN AND ORS. versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 17-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KANCHAN AND ORS. 
A 
'"' 
V. 
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. 
JANUARY 17, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTER.IEE, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 68(3)(b): 
'r 
Grant of permits lo Transporters-Power of Stale Transport Authority/ c 
STA-Mala fides-Held: Authorities granted permits lo Transporters even 
without filing an application for grant of such permits-Relevant records not 
produced by the authorities on the pretext of vigilance inquiries in the mailer-
..... 
In deciding the question of mala fides if the authorities acted without 
application of mind, which act of the authority is sufficient lo atlach vulnerability 
to the action against it on the question of mala tides-Thus, High Court D 
/ 
rightly found the mala fides of the authorities in granting the permits. 
' 
. 
The question which arose in these appeals was as to whether the 
permit granted to the appellants/Transporters by the State Transport 
Authority could be legally sustained. The permits so granted were set aside 
by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the action E 
of the authorities was ma/a fide. On appeal, order of the Tribunal was 
affirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
It was contended by the appellant that the High Court did not take 
,." 
note of the fact that the revision petition filed before the Appellate 
Tribunal was not maintainable as the Revision petitioner, the existing F 
operators had no locus-standi to file the petition. The authorities, in exercise 
of power under Section 68(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had taken 
over the power to grant permits and in bona fide exercise of the power 
issued permits; and that there was no specific challenge in the Revision 
Petition before the Tribunal about the infirmities which the High Court G 
has highlighted . 
.. 
~ 
The respondents submitted that the whole exercise clearly smacked 
of non-transparency and mala-fides; that 48 permits were granted and in 
some cases, the files which were produced before the Tribunal indicated 
451 
H 
452 
SUPREME COllRT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A that even applications for grant of permits were not there; that the permits 
were granted on the very same day on which the State Transport 
Authority (ST A) purportedly took over the power to grant permits in 
exercise of powers under Section 68(3) (b) of the Act and that too without 
issuing a notification in connection thereto leaves no manner of doubt that 
B the STA was acting contrary to law; and that as to how the applications 
could be made to the ST A much before it assumed power in exercise of 
powers under Section 68(3)(b) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD. I.I. This is not a fit case for interference. The findings of 
C the High Court about the mala-fides of the State Transport Authority 
(STA) are clearly borne out from the records seen by the Tribunal. Both 
the Tribunal and the High Court have recorded categorical findings that 
there were not even applications for grant of permits in such case. It baffles 
one as to how the permits could be granted even without application. The 
D State Transport Authority did not produce all the 48 files relating to the 
grant of permits. A plea was taken that some of the files were taken by 
the vigilance authorities inquiring into the allegations of corruption. Be 
that as it may, the fact remains that in some cases elaborated by the 
Tribunal and the High Court, the applications were not there. 1454-D-EI 
E 
1.2. While deciding the question of mulu:fides, the very fact that in 
F 
G 
H 
certain cases, the authorities have acted without application of mind, is 
itself sufficient to attach vulnerability to the action. (454-FI 
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman v. 
Omaditya Verma und Ors .. (20051 4 SCC 424, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7305 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.2003 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4862412002. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 7306/2003 and Cont. Pet. (C) No. 159 2005 in C.A. No. 
7306/2003. 
Vijay Hansaria, P.D. Sharma and Minakshi Sharma for the Appellants. 
.... -
' 
I ' 
-
KANCHAN 1·. STA TE TRANSPORT APPELLATETRIBUNAL[ PASAYAT,l) 
453 
\ 
Rakesh Dwivedi, Ranjeet Kumar, Ms. Gauri Chhabra, Ms. Sudha Pal, A 
Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Pramod Swarup, Pramod Dayal and Pradeep Mishra for 
the Respondents. 
Dinesh Dwivedi and Prashant Chowdhary for the Intervenor.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.