LexNEW PRAKASH TRANSPORT CO. LTD. versus NEW SUWARNA TRANSPORT CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1956 Rajes Kanta Roy v. Sonti Deli Jagannodhadas J. 1956 Stplember 30. 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19571 instance, and (2) on the ground that the interest which Rajes gets under the trust deed either as regards the general properties covered by the deed or as regards premises No. 44/2, Lansdowne Road, is contingent, are untenable. If, as a fact, either the debts remain undis-· charged or the alternative accommodation has not so far been provided, how the rights of persons affected thereby are to be safeguarded is not a matter that arises for consideration before us and we express no. opinion thereupon. This. appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismi.<sd. NEW PRAKASH TRANSPORT CO. LTD. v. NEW SUWARNA TRANSPORT CO. LTD. (S. R. DAS C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs JJ.) Road Transport-Application for stage carriage permit-Police •·eport-P1·ocedu1·e-Appellate Authority, if bound to adjourn pro~ ceeding suo motu-Fa:"lure of natural justice-Motor Vehicles Act (/fl of 1939), ss. 47, 48, 64, 68. Rules of n3tural justice vary with the varying constitutions of statutory bodies anJ the rules prescribed by the legislature under \Vhich they have to act, and the question whether in a particular case they have been contra\·ened n1ust be judged not by any preconceived notion of what they may be but in the light of the provisions of the relevant Act. Case-la\\' discussed. The provisions of ss. 47, 48, 64 and the rules framed under , s. 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act make it abundantly clear that a Regional Transport Authority and an Appellate Authority in hearing an appeal, function in a quasi-judicial capacity and not as courts of law and are not required to record oral or documentary evidence and, in deciding as between the rival claims of applicants for stage carriage permits, what they are required to do is to deal with such claims in a fair and just manner. The Act, however, amply provides for the safeguarding of their interests. Vurappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. (1932] S.C.R. 583, referred ·to. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 99 Consequently, in a case where the Regional Transport Autho- ,rity refused to grant a permit to an applicant on account of an adverse police report and the Appellate Authority granted the same on the basis of a further report by the police, whereby .all material allegations against him were withdrawn and nothing was said against his rival which would require to be contro- verted by him, and the Chairman read out such report at the hearing of the appeal without any objection by any of the interested parties or any request for adjournment and a Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, reversing the decision of a single Judg~ made under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, held that the rules of natural justice had been contravene~ !Jy reason of the failure on the part of the Appellate Authority to adjourn the proceeding suo motu in order to afford the rival claimant an opportunity to meet the revised police report, its decision was erroneous and must be set aside. Held, further, that the reading out of the contents of the police report by the Chairman at the hearing of the appeal was enough compliance with the rules of natural justice as there was nothing in the rules requiring a copy of it to be furnished to any of the parties. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment anci -order dated September 22, 1955, of the Nagpur High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2 of 1955. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India, /. N. Bannerji and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 1. 1956. September 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 22, 1955, passed by :the Letters Patent Bench of the Nagpur High Court reversing those of a single Judge of that Court, dated December 13, 1954, refusing to issue a writ in the nature of a certiorari. The facts 'Of this case lie in a short compass and may be stated as follows: The Suwarna Transport Company Limited, which will be referred to as the first respondent in the course of .this judgment, held seven permits for runnin_g .buses on the Buldana-Malkapur route, as the 1956 Ntw Prakasb Tr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.