SRI RAMA VILAS SERVICE (P) LTD. versus C. CHANDRASEKARAN & ORS

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 09-12-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
, 
5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
869 
latdar would declare the transfer to be invalid in case 
1963 
the transferee failed to pay the penalty. The pro-
-
visions of s. 84A brought the matter of validity or 
Bai Achhuba · 
invalidity of a transfer deed within the jurisdiction · Amar Singh 
of the Mamlatdar. It was in the exercise of this 
v. 
jurisdiction that the Mamlatdar issued a notice on 
Sri Kit/idas 
October 7, 1957 to the respondent for paying the liarnath OJha 
penalty of Rs. 100 calculated at the rate of 5 °fo on the 
and Others 
consideration of the sale deed. On December 9, 
-
1957 the Mamlatdar issued the necessary certificate Raghubar Dayal 
validating the sale deed on the respondent's paying 
J. 
Rs. 35. I consider the certificate to be good in law. 
It is not necessary to express an opinion in this 
case whether the Mamlatdar could certify a transfer 
to be valid in case it had been legally declared invalid 
by a competent Court previously. 
I am therefore of opinion that the order of the 
High Court under appeal is correct and that this 
appeal be dismissed. 
ORDER 
In view of the judgment of the majority, the 
Order of the High Court is set aside and that of the 
,. 
Revenue Tribunal restored. The costs throughout 
will be borne by Respondent No. I. 
· 
SRI RAMA VILAS SERVICE (P) LTD. 
v. 
C. CHANDRASEKARAN & ORS. 
1963 
(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.C. DAS GUPTA1 JJ.) 
December 9 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4of1939) s. 47(1) (a) and Constitu-
tion of India, Art. 226.-Consideration in granting permit-Mean-
ing of Public interest-if writ of certiorari can be issued on questions 
of fact. 
. 
The Regional Transport Authority granted one stage carriage 
permit to the appellant. On appeal, the State Transport Appel-
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
1963 
late Tribunal took the view that the appellant was a monopolist 
over a distance .of 18 miles which was a part of the route in ques-
Sri Rama Vilas tion and so, it rejected the application for a permit made by the 
Service (P) Ltd. appell.ant an~ grankd th~ pern;iit to respondent no. I over the 
route m quest10n. It 1s agamst this order of the Appellate Tnbunal 
Y· 
that the appellant preferred· a writ petition before the High Court. 
,C. 
The single Judge, who heard the ·writ petition, quashed the order 
Chandrasekaran of the Appellate Tribunal. 
This order was 
challeng~d by 
. &: Ors. 
respondent no. I by preferring an appeal under the Letters Patent 
before a Division Bench of the said High Court. The Division 
Bench affirmed the order of the· Appellate Tribunal and set 
aside the order of the single Judge on the ground that the single 
Judge was not justified in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 
226 of the Constitution oflndia. Hence this appeal. 
Held: (i) In granting a permit, the appropriate authorities 
under the. Motor Vehicles Act are required to consider the interests 
of the public generally under s. 47(1)(a) of the Act. 
In dealing 
with this aspect of the matter, it would not be irrelevant for the 
appropriate authority to hold that if any applicant is or would 
be in the position of a monopolist if a permit was granted to him, 
he would be liable to neglect the interests of the public and may 
not be very keen on taking all steps to keep his service in good 
and efficient order. Therefore, it cannot be said that in taking 
into account the fact that the appellant was a monopolist on 
a part of the route, the Appellate Tribunal has been influenced 
by any irrelevant fact. 
R.K. Ayyaswami Gounder v. M/s. Sundambigai Motor Service, 
Dharampura. C.A. No. 198 of 1962 decided on 17th September, 
1962 relied on. '· 
(ii) It is true that the administrative directions issued by the 
Government under s. 43(a) have no force of statutory rules and 
are; therefore, not binding; but that does not mean that the con-
sideration that the granting of a. monopoly to a bus-operator 
may be prejudicial to public interest, becomes irrelevant only 
because it bas been included or is implied in the administrative 
instructions. The said consideration has to be taken into account 
not because it bas been included in the administrative instructions, 
but because, by itself, it is a relevant consideration under s. 47(1) 
(a) of the Act. 
, 
M/s. Raman & Raman Ltd. v. The State of Madras, [1959] 
> 
Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 227, relied on. 
(iii) In dealing with the applications under Art. 226 in cases 
of this kind, it is necessary to bear in mind that the High C

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