RAM GOPAL versus ANANT PRASAD AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 21-04-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
r959 
shows that the legislature was defining the term 
' business ' as and when necessary, as it laid down the 
Co1nmissioncr of rules for calculation of profits of a business. It was 
Inconie-ta~; 
•West Bengal 
including different kinds of businesses within the Act 
v. 
and indicating how in those cases the profits had to 
Calcutta National be calculated. I do not think that the definition 
<Ba~~ Limit'.d 
given in the Act can be said to control everything in 
In 
quidation) the Schedule, in spite of the definition of ' profits ' and 
Hidayatullah J. the heading given to the Schedule. As I have said 
I959 
April 2I. 
' 
above, the second of the two alternatives is really 
applicable to the present case. 
For these reasons and those given by my brother, 
Sinha, J., I hold that this appeal should be allowed 
with costs here and below. 
BY THE CoURT.-In accordance with the judgment 
of the majority, the decision under appeal is set aside 
and the appeal is allowed with costs here and below. 
RAM GOPAL 
v. 
AN ANT PRASAD AND ANOTHER 
(S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and K. SuBBA RAO, JJ.) 
Appeal-Maintainability-Permit to run stage carriage-Appli-
cation for renewal-New applicant's application for permit-Order 
by State Transport Authority renewing permit but no order passed on 
new applicant's application-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal against 
order granting renewal-Whether appeal competent-Motor Vehicles 
Act, r939 (4 of r939), ss. 47, 57,. 58, 64. 
The appellant who was the holder of a permit to run a stage 
carriage, which was about to expire, rna<le an application to the 
State Transport Authority for its renewal for a further period. 
The respondent made a representation against the renewal of the 
appellant's permit and also applied for the grant of the permit 
to himself. The State Transport Authority made an order in 
the terms "Renewed for three years" in respect of the appel-
lant's permit but no express order was made on the respondent's 
application for the grant of the permit to him. On appeal by 
the respondent, the Appellate Tribunal cancelled the appellant's 
permit and granted the permit to the respondent. The appellant 
then moved the Judicial Commissioner, Vindhya Pradesh, for a 
(2) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
693 
writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Appellate Tribunal 
r959 
on the ground that it disclosed.an error on the face of it because 
under the Act no appeal lay from the order that was passed -by 
Ram Gopal 
the subordinate authority. The learned Judicial Commissioner 
v. 
held that the appeal was competent and dismissed the applica-
Anant P•asad 
cation for the writ. It was contended for the appellant that the 
respondent's appeal to the Appellate Tribunal was not maintain-
able on the grounds (r) that no express order was made against 
the respondent by the State Transport Authority, and so s. 64(a) 
of the Act did not give him a right of appeal and (2) that in view 
of ss. 47, 57 and 58 of the Act, the State Transport Authority 
had no jurisdiction to consider the respondent's application or to 
make an order in respect of it after the appellant's permit was 
renewed, and therefore could not make an order rejecting it. It 
was also contended thats. 64 of the Act did not provide for an 
appeal by a person aggrieved by the renewal of a permit unless 
he was one of those mentioned in cl. (f) of that section which the 
respondent was not, and therefore even if an appeal by the res-
pondent was competent under s. 64(a) in such an appeal, the 
Appellate Authority could not set aside the order of renewal. 
Held: (r) that the order made by the State Transport 
Authority in the present case did amount, in fact, to a refusal 
to grant the permit to the respondent. The respondent's appeal 
to the Appellate Authority was therefore maintainable under 
s. 64(a) of the Act. 
S. Gopala Reddi v. Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot• 
[1955] 2 M.L.J. 130, approved. 
V. C. K. Bus Service Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, 
Coimbatore, [1957] S.C.R. 663, distinguished. 
(2) thats. 58(2) of the Act shows that an application for the 
renewal of a permit and a fresh application for the same permit 
have to be heard together, and that there was nothing in ss. 47 
and 57, indicating a contrary course. 
(3) that cl. (f) of s. 64 of the Act does not in any way 
restrict the power of the Appellate Tribunal to grant all reliefs 
in an appeal under cl. (a) of the s

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