LexMAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus BABU GOVERDHAN REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP01 B c D E F G H RATION v. BABU GOVERDHAN REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE ANI> OTHERS September 10, 1969 [C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, I. D. DUA AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939, ss. 46 and 68-Wliether requirements of .~. 46 1nandatory-lj application for permit not furnishing inforn1aaon required by s. 46 bound to be rejected su1nniarily-F orni prescribed 'by Stare Govern1nent under its rule making power under s. 68-Whether valid. The appellant, as well as Respondents 1 to 5 and 8 to 16, applied to the Regional Transport Authority. Nagpur, on various dates in the years 19114-65, under s. 46 of . Act IV of 1939 for grant of sta11e carria11e permits on certain routes. After notification of th•: applications and considering objections of and hearing the parties, the Regional. Transport Authority ;iassed orders granting permits in farnur c~ the appellant. Respondents I to 5 filed appeals before the Appellate Committee of the transport authority of Maharashtra challenging the permits granted to th;, appellant on the ground that in the appellant"s application, mandatory information required to be submitted under s. 46 read with the form prescribed undt:r Rule 80 of the relevant rules had not been furnished by the appellant. The Appellate committee upheld the challenge and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for re.consi. deration with a direction that the appellant should be asked to furnish complete information and, after the receipt of such information in the prescribed form as well as compliance with the. normal procedure the· entire matter be re~heard and decided afresh. Respvndents 1 to 5 challenged this order of the Appellate Committee before the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution contending that the Com- mittee should have re}<cted the applications of the appellant on the ground that the mandatory provisions of s. 46 had nol be.en complied with: and that the order of the Committee realty amounted to allo\ving 1h-;;: appellant tO convert a defective application so a~ to bring it in con· formity with the provisions of the, Act and the form, '°"'hich \Vas not permissible in law. The High Court accepted this contention holding that the Appellate Committee had no jurisdiction to give the appellant a fresh opportunity ,to furnish the necessary particulars. It therefore rc1nan<led the matt·zr with a direction that the applications of all parties excepting that of the ·state Road Transport Corporation be considered and a decision reached on the grant of permits between the rival applicants. In appeal before this Court it was contended inter (l/ia that the. High Court was in error in interfering in a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 2.27 with the order of the Appellate Committee; that the form prescribed by th·, State Government for an application for a permit had gone beyond the rule making power of the State Government under s. 68 of the Act; and that the provisions of s. 46 of the Act are not mandatory and there is no jurisdiction in the authorities functioning under the Act to reject ari application summarily on the. ground that it was not in conformity with the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. 320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970] 2 S.C.R. HELD : Allowing the appeal : (i) Since the impugned order of tho A Appellate. Committee was challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it was not possible to hold that the High Court could not have entert_ained the writ petition under Ars. 226 and 227. [326 Cl Nag.endra Nath Bora v. The Cvn1111ission.er of Hills Diri.'>ion & Appeals, Assam, [1958] S.C.R. 1240; referred to. (ii) The form prescribed by the State Government requiring the fur- nishing of information on the various particulars and Qlatlers referred to the.rein was not beyond the rule making po\.ver of the State Government under s. 68 of the Act. Section 46, rule 80, and the fom1 prescribed, have to be read together, and so read it follows that an applicant for a permit must comply. at any rate, substantially with the various matters mentioned therein. Section 68 is not controlled by s. 46 of the Act. In fact it specifically enables the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of ChD,pter JV. The Chapter itself is entitled 'Control of Transport Vehicles' and if. with a view to carrying into effect the o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.