C.S.S. MOTOR SERVICE, TENKASI AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ANR.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
C.S.S. Motor Service, Tenkasi
State Of Madras Represented By The Secretary To The Government Of Madras, Home Department
Click here to view full judgement.
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. -
(1.) (W. P. Nos. 333, 334 and 615 of 1951): These applications raise questions of considerable importance about the validity of the permit system under the Motor Vehicles Act and of some of the provisions of that Act.
(2.) THE facts in W. P. No. 333 of 1951 are these: In the Tenkasi Utbumalai route in the district of Tirunelveli respondent 2 was running one stage carriage. On 25 -7 -1950 applications were invited for a second stage carriage service over the route. Among the applicants were the petitioner and respondent 2. On 25 -8 -1950 the Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to respondent 2. On appeal the Central Road Traffic Board set aside this order on 5 -11 -1950 and granted the permit to the petitioner. The respondent moved the Government under Section 64A of the Act and after various proceedings which it is unnecessary now to detail the Government passed an order on 5 -7 -1951 setting aside the order of the Central Road Traffic Board and restored that of the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner now seeks to set aside this order as unconstitutional. The facts in W. P. No. 334 of 1951 are these: A new route between Tenkasi and Sendamaram in the district of Tirunelveli was opened in 1950 and applications were invited for two stage carriage permits in that route. The petitioner and respondent 2, who may be mentioned, are the same as in W. P. No. 333 of 1951 were among the sixteen applicants for the permit. On 8 -1 -1951 the Regional Transport Authority granted one permit to the petitioner and the other to respondent 2 and dismissed the other applications. On appeal by respondent 2 the Central Road Traffic Board passed an order on 2 -4 -1951 setting aside the grant of permit to the petitioner and granting it to respondent 2. The petitioner moved the Government under Section 64A, Motor Vehicles Act but the Government rejected the petition summarily on 30 -7 -1951 by an order which is in these terms: "The Government sees no reason to interfere". It is this order that is attacked in W. P. No. 334 of 1351.
(3.) IN W. P. No. 615 of 1951 the material facts are these: In 1950 it was decided to open a new bus route between Kodavasal and Saliamangalam in the Tarijore district. The petitioner first got permits to run two stage carriages on this route. Later on applications were invited for two more permits. There were eight applicants including the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. On 2 -6 -1951 the Regional Transport Authority granted these two permits to the petitioner. On appeal the Central Road Traffic Board passed an order on 10 -8 -1951 setting aside the grant of the two permits to the petitioner and dividing it between respondents 4 and 5. A revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 64A was dismissed on 4 -10 -1951, the order of the Government being in these terms: "Government sees no reason to interfere". It is this order that is questioned in W. P. No. 615 of 1951.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.