MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SHRI BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE AMRAVATI & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 22-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-·-· 
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 
CORPORATION 
v. 
SURI BALWANT REGL'LAR MOTOR SERVICE. 
AMRA VA TI .~ ORS. 
August 22, 1968 
[J. C. SHAil, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Mo/or Vehicles ACI (4 of 1939), ss. 48(1), 57(7) 
and 58(1)-
0rder grantillK per1nit-Period of validity not mentioned-Effect of.-
Date of com111encement nor mentioned-Effect of. 
Practice- ·Fillin1; up datr in earlier order-If re\·iev.'. 
·If order grantin~ pennit can be 
oral--Obligation 
10 give 
r1•asons 
in1nzediarelt>. 
Writ under Art. 226··-Conduct of part_v when pr?cfudes issue of. 
On May 10. 1965, the R.T.A., after considering the applications by 
the rcspondcnrs (priv;.1tc operators) for rene\\·al of their permits and the 
application hy rhe appellant for a fresh grant of pcnnits, for the same 
routes. p<l5Sed orders dismissing the applica1ions for rene\\':-ti and granting 
substantive permits lo the appellant. 
'fhe order wao; chairenged by the 
private operators in \\Tit petitions and the High (-Ourt directed th;:Lt, pend-
ing the di~posal of the v.·rit petitions, status quo should he maintained hy 
granting temporary permits to the private opcrarors. 
'I"hereafter. \\·hile 
the writ petitions were pending. the appellant and the private operators 
filed " joint application o( compromise before the R. T.A. by which the 
private operators agreed to \vithdraw the \\Tit petitions. 
The R.1°.1\ .. on 
Septernhcr 11, 1965. upon such assurance ;ind after hearing the parties, 
tlirectcd that tbc appellant. which wa• granted suhst:antive pennil• by 
order dated f\.1ay 10. 1965, v.·ould comrncnee operation on the routes 
described in Schedule A to the order from November I, 1965. that the 
private operators \\'ould operate on remporary permits on routes men-
tioned in Schedule B till June 30, 1967 and that the appellant would 
commence operation on those routes from Julv 1, 1967. 
With regard 
to the routes 1nt!ntioned in Schedule C, the private operators agreed to, 
surrendt..-r their permits in favour of the appellant hut, as the appellant 
had not made <.1ny application for those routes. the R.T.A. decided to call 
for applications a~ provided for in the :f\.1otor Vehicles Act, 1939. 
On 
October 8 
I 965 the private operators withdrew the writ petitions, and 
thereupon 'the R. l.A .. on Octoher 15. 1965. announced the decision taken 
on Scptemher 11. 1965, and thereafter. invited appli~ations for .ttn routcs 
nlentioned in S..:hcdulc C 
lbc appellant .made its application. . The 
private operators also applied, hut they applied not only for pcrm1B for 
c Schedule roti:es. hut also .in respect of the B Sc_hedule routes. 
On 
April 5. 1967. permits \\'ere issued to the appella~t 1n respect of !he B 
Schedule routes as per the orders dated ~ay ~O. 1 J65 and Septen1hcr I.I. 
t 965, for a period of 5 years commt.'11Clng, ~ron1 Jt1.lv 1.. 1.967. 
At ils 
meeting on June 29, 1967, th~ R.T.A .. pa~scd resolutions 1n the presence 
of the partieo; r.r:.nting suh<ifanllve permits in respect .of Schedule C roulL'"S 
to the appellaiit. and rejecting the applications of .pnvare operators. 
T,hc 
minutes of the meeting v.'ere formally recorded 10 a. letter of July _o• 
.1967, detailed reasons in support of the order v.·ere given, and the Je~cr 
\\'as communicated to the prJvate operators. 
The order dated June 
_9, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
-
G 
H 
-
.. 
-' 
TRANSP. CORP. v. BALWANT SERVICE 
8 0!} 
A 
1967 was challenged by the private operators in w'rit petitions and the 
High Court allowed the petitions quashing the grant of permits to the 
appellant on the 'routes described in Schedules B and C. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
,y 
G 
H 
In appeal to this Court, on the questions : (1) whether the order of 
the R.T.A. dated May 10, 1965, was invalid because, (a) the period 
of validity of the permit was not expressly mentioned, and (b) the order 
did not mention the date of comtpencement of the period o'f the permit; 
(2) whether the order of the R.T.A. dated September ll, 1965, fixing 
the date of conimencement of the service was invalid, because, the order 
was a review of the order dated May 10, 1965 and Lhe R.T.A. had no 
power of review; (3) whether the order dated September 11, 1965, was 
invalid because it was passed during the subsistence of the interim order 
of the High Court maintainirig status quo; ( 4) whether in view of their 
conduct, it was not open to the private operato'rs to apply for a writ for 
quashing the order of the R.T.A. dated September 11, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.