VEERAPPA PILLAI versus RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 17-03-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

_ .. 
( -. 
• 
( 
S.C.E,. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
VEERAPPA PILLAI 
"· 
RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. and OTHERS. 
[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR JJ.] 
583 
Constitution of India, Art. 226--0rder of Traffic Board grant· 
ing permit to run motor buses to particular person-Application 
to High Court by rival claimant under Art. 226 for quashing the 
order and for a direction to grant permits to him-Maintainability-
jurisdiction of High Court to interfere-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 
-Grant of permit-Whether depends on ownership of bus-Dis-
cretion of Traffic Board. 
The writs referred to in Art. 226 are intended to enable the 
High Court to issue them in grave cases where the subordinate 
tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without judisdiction , or 
in excess of it:, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, 
or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an 
error apparent on the face of the record and such 
act, 
omission 
or error or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However 
extensive the jurisdiction may be, it is not so wide or large as 
to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal 
and examine for itself the correctness of the 
decisions impugned 
and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to 
be made. 
The Motor Vehicles 
Act contains a 
complete and 
precise 
schr"me 
for 
regulating the issue of permits, providing what 
matters are to be taken into consideration as relevant and pres-
cribing appeals and revisions from 
subordinate 
bodies to higher 
authorities, and the issue or refusal of permits is solely within 
the discretion of the transport authorities; 
it is 
not a matter 
of right. 
. 
Where, in a dispute between two rival claimants for running 
through a particular route five buses, which each of them alleged 
he had purchased from a third person, 
the Central Road Traffic 
Board, Madras, after calling for 
a report from the Regional 
Transport Officer and considering several circumstances that had 
a material bearing on the case, restored the permanent permits 
which had been granted to one of the claimants, but on an 
application by the other claimant under Art. 226 of the Con-
stitution td the High Court of Madras for a writ of certiorari 
quashing the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, 
the 
Central Road Traffic Board and the State of Madras and for a: 
writ of mandamus to the respondents to transfer, is:ue or grant 
1952 
Mflt'Ch 17. 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
1952 
permanent permits to the petitioner', the High Court set aside 
. 
. 
the order of the Central Traffic Board, relying mainly on the 
Veerapp• .Pillai fact that the petitioner's title to. the five buses had been csta-
v. 
blished and directed the Regional Traffic Authority to grant to 
Raman & Raman the petitioner permits in respect of the five buses : 
Ltd. & Others. 
Held, that under 
the Motor Vehicles 
Act, the issue of 
--
a permit for a bus was not dependent on the ownership of the 
Chantfrasekhara bus but on other considerations also, and as the Central Traffic 
Aiyar ]. 
Board had issued an order granting permits to 
one 
of 
the 
claimants after considering 
all circumstances the 
High Court 
acted erroneously in interfering with the Order 0£ Traffic Board 
on an application under Art. 226 ; and in any event the order of 
the High Court issuing a direction to the Regional Transport 
Authority to grant permits to the other party was clearly in 
excess of its powers and jurisdiction. 
The Motor Vehicles Act is a statute which creates new 
rights and liabilities and prescribes an elaborate procedure for 
their regulation. 
No one is entitled to a permit as of right even 
if he satisfies all the prescribed conditions. The grant of a 
permit is ·entirely within the discretion of the transport 
autho~ 
rities 
and 
naturally 
depends on several 
circumstances 
which 
have .to be taken into account. 
CML 
APPELLATE 
JuRismCTION 
Civil Appeal 
No. 159 of 1951. Appeal by special leave ·from the 
judgment and order dated 13th of April, 1951, of . the 
High Court of Judicature at Madras (Rajamannar C. J. 
·and Somasundaram J.) in C.M.P. No. 122/15 of 1950. 
M. C. Setalvad 
(C. R. Pattabhi Raman, with him) 
for the appellant. 
C. K. Daphtary 
(M. Natesan, with him) for the 
respondent No. 1. 
V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General· of Madras 
(R. '. 
Ganapathi Iyer, with him) for respondent No. 4. 
1

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