V. C. K. BUS SERVICE LTD. versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, COIMBATORE.

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 19-02-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
663 
It was because of the above two contentions raised 
by counsel for the appellant and because it was a case 
of reversal of a judgment of acquittal that we allowed 
counsel to go into the evidence which he analysed and 
drew our attention· to its salient features and to the 
discrepancies in the 
statements of 
witnesses and the 
improbabilities of the case ; but we are satisfied 
that 
the learned Judges were justified in 
coming to the 
conclusion 
they 
did 
and 
the 
view 
of the trial 
judge was rightly displaced. 
Upon a review 
of the 
evidence of the prosecution witnesses we have come 
to 
the conclusion 
that 
the appellant 
was 
rightly 
convicted. 
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the judgment 
of the High . Court is affirmed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
V. C. K. BUS SERVICE LTD. 
ti. 
THE 
REGIONAL 
TRANSPORT 
AUTHORITY, 
COIMBATORE. 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR. s. K. DAS AND 
GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 
Road Transport-Permit for stage 
carriage-Renewal-W he th er 
a continuation of the original permit-Whether subject to implied 
condition of validity of the original permit-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 
(IV of 1939), ss. 57, 58. 
The appellant was granted a permit for stage carriage hy the 
Regional Transport Authority under the provisions of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1939, but on appeal to the appellate 
authority, the 
Central Road Traffic Board, by 
the unsuccessful applicants the 
order granting 
the permit 
was set aside and the order of the 
Central Road Traffic Board was appro\'ed hy the Government in 
re"ision. 
The appellant. thereupon. moved the 
High Court for a 
writ of certi01'<1ri to quash the proceedings 
of the 
Central Road 
Traffic Board an<l the Gowrnment. 
During the pen<lency of these 
proceedings there was a stay of operation of the order setting aside 
the grant of the permit to the appellant. with the result that he 
continued to run his buses notwithstanding the cancellation of his 
permit. 
Before the expiry of the 
perio<l 
fixed in the original 
1957 
Nisar Ali 
v. 
The State of 
Uttar Pradesh 
Kapur]. 
'95'/ 
February 19. 
'957 
V. C. K. Bus Strviet 
Ltd. 
v. 
The Regional 
Transport 
il.utlwrity, 
Coimbator1 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19571 
permit, he applied for and got a renewal of the permit from the 
Regional Transport Authority under s. 58 of the Act. 
The High 
Court finally dis1nissed the applic:ition for a writ of certiorari and 
the question arose as to the validity of tbe renewal of the pennit 
in view of the High Court's decision. 
]'he 1natter was raised before 
the High 
Court once again by proceedings under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution and the High Court held that the r.:-newal having been 
obtained on the 
basis of a 
pern1it which had been subsequently 
cancelled, it c-oul<l not be regarded as a frc!:h permit, that when 
the original permit \Vas set asi<le, it 111ust be taken to be non est 
for all purposes, and that 
thr renc\val must therefore be held to 
be a nullity. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. 
Held: (1) Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1949, and the rules framed thereunder, a rene\\.·al is a continuation 
of the original pennit. 
\Vhen the original permit \Vas rent\\'ed in 
favoui of the appellant it v.·as subject to the Jecision of the High 
Court in the proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution which 
\vere then pending and, therefore, 'vhen the order 
granting' the 
original permit \Vas finally set aside the renewed permit becan1e 
void. 
Anjiah \', Regional 1·ransport Officer, Guntul', 1956 i\ndhra 
Law Ti1nes, 347, disapproved. 
(2) When the appellant applied for a renewal of his permit 
under s. 58 of the .-\ct and not merely for a fresh permit the order 
of the Regional Transport A'.Jthority granting the renewal rnust 
be held to ha\'e 
been made subject 
to the implied condition that 
the right of the appeilant to the original permit is recognized by 
the 
High Court and that accordingly, in the ever1t that had 
happened, the reOC\\'cd pc:nnit ceased to be effective. 
Veerappa Pill..1i v. Ran1a11 &, Ram.a; Ltd., (1952) S.C.R. 583, 
explained and Jistinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
323 and 324 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and orders dated April 
27, and July 13, 1956, of the Madras 
High Court in 
Writ Appeals Nos. 42 and 88 of 1956 arising· out of the 
orders dated March 2.3, and 
July 9, 1956, of the said 
High Court in 
Writ 
Petitions Nos. 333 and 564 

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