NILKANTH PRASAD RAI JAI KRISHNA DEBI SINGH TANSUKH RAI JAIN RAM SANEHI SINGH NAWALKISHORE LAL ROAD TRANSPORT CO DHANBAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-1961-12-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
December 01,1961
NILKANTH PRASAD,RAI JAI KRISHNA,DEBI SINGH,TANSUKH RAI JAIN,RAM SANEHI SINGH,NAWALKISHORE LAL,ROAD TRANSPORT COMPANY,DHANBAD
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR,SECRETARY,CHHOTANAGPUR REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,RANCHI
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
C P C MOTOR SERVICE MYSORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(SC)-1961-12-10] [RELIED ON]MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(SC)-1974-8-50] [FOLLOWED .]
C KASTURI VS. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-1996-1-62] [RELIED ON]
SARDAR SURENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1965-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
M K JAIN VS. STATE TRANSPORT [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-147] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE OFFICER T T DEVASTHANAMS TIRUPATHI VS. K RAMACHANDRA NAIDU [LAWS(APH)-1964-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
MOTOR WORKERS UNION VS. RAYAPWADDI APPARAO [LAWS(APH)-1969-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT TRANSPORT DEPT [LAWS(APH)-1999-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
JALPAIGURI-SLLIGTM BUS SYNDICATE VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JALPAIGURI [LAWS(CAL)-1966-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
LAB SINGH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1967-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY [LAWS(MPH)-1963-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BAIRAGARH VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY INDORE [LAWS(MPH)-1968-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH SAHU VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(ORI)-1970-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL M P GWALIOR [LAWS(MPH)-1976-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAHAMATHULLA VS. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KAR)-1984-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR VS. WAHIDAN [LAWS(MPH)-1986-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHLAL DHODY VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1987-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR SHEIKH VS. BANESWAR DAS PODDAR [LAWS(CAL)-1986-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE VS. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1997-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1999-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
TVL PATTUKKOTTAI AZHAGIRI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD VS. TVL V K VELAYUTHAM [LAWS(MAD)-1992-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
TVL CHOLAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD VS. PL A ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR PROP PLA SAVINGS CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1993-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
TVL CHOLAN ROADWAYS CORPN LTD VS. TVL AJANTHA TRAVELS PONDICHERRY AND [LAWS(MAD)-1994-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1985-10-11] [RELIED ON]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. ASHRAFULLA KHAN [LAWS(SC)-2002-1-158] [REFERRED]
RAM KIRPAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1998-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MEERUT VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1977-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P V SATYANARAYANA MURTHY [LAWS(APH)-2010-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAMOJI RAO VS. M A E KUMAR KRISHNA VARMA [LAWS(APH)-2011-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE VS. P NARAYANA RAO [LAWS(KAR)-1993-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALDAS VS. DIST JUDGE INDORE [LAWS(MPH)-1989-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
BAKUL CASHEW COMPANY VS. SALES TAX OFFICER R SPECIAL CIRCLE QUILON [LAWS(KER)-1976-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
G K VENKATASHIVA REDDY VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS CORPN [LAWS(KAR)-2004-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH BAPU SHIRSAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVCHANDRA JHUNJHUNWALA CHARITABLE TRUST VS. GOVINDPRASAD GANESHPRASAD DUBEY [LAWS(BOM)-2003-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP JAIPUR VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1967-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA DAS AND SONS VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
NATHURAM VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1972-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
MALIK RAM KALRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1975-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1978-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYANT TRAVELS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
B.O.DAVIS VS. B.T.MARTIN [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation VS. Various Private Operators (Transport) [LAWS(KAR)-1993-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
THE BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1984-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, JALPAIGURI REGION VS. JALPAIGURI SILIGURI BUS SYNDICATE [LAWS(CAL)-1974-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
D. GOUTHAM KUMAR VS. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TAMIL NADU, CHEPAUK, MADRAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-1995-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
K. MOIDNNNI VS. B. SASIKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-1988-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2017-11-161] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Hidayatullah, J. -
(1.)The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1961 will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 535 to 539 of 1961. In these appeals, private operators of omnibuses challenge the orders of the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority, by which it set aside the renewal of the permits on certain routes granted by the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Patna. The appellants held previously stage carriage permits over certain routes, which were due to expire in December, 1958 or in January, 1959. They had applied for renewal of their permits under S. 58 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under a scheme framed and notified on July 8, 1957, vide Notification No. P-2-203/57T/4794, the route, Gaya to Khijirsarai, was notified under S. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Rajya Transport, Bihar, was exclusively allowed to operate on that route. In Civil Appeals Nos. 535 to 538 of 1961, the Rajya Transport, Bihar, filed objections against the renewal of the permits. In Civil Appeals Nos. 534 and 539 of 1961, no objections were filed. The route, Gaya to Khijirsarai, which may be called conveniently route 'AB' formed part of routes, on which the appellants were operating, and in respect of which they had asked for renewal of their permits. The South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, however, renewed the permits of the appellants, holding that route 'AB' was different from the routes, for which renewal was demanded.
(2.)Against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, appeals were filed by the Rajya Transport, Bihar in all the cases, that is to say, in those cases in which the Rajya Transport, Bihar, had objected, and those in which it had not objected. While these appeals were pending, the State of Bihar, acting under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (64 of 1950) notified on April 20, 1959 as follows:
"No. R. T. Cor. 1/59-3090 - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (LXIV of 1950), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to establish with effect from the 1st May, 1959 a Road Transport Corporation, for the State of Bihar, to be called the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation.
2. The said Corporation shall with effect from the said date, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions which are at present being exercised and performed by the Rajya Transport, Bihar.
By order of the Governor of Bihar.
K. B. Sharma, Dy. Secy."
(3.)At the hearing of the appeals, the Government Advocate, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, appeared for the Road Transport Corporation. Objection was taken to the competency of the appeals on two grounds. In those cases in which the Rajya Transport, Bihar, had not objected to the renewal of the permits before the Regional Transport Authority, it was contended that it had no locus standi to file appeals. In those cases in which it had so objected, the ground was that the Road Transport Corporation could not, in law, represent ,the Rajya Transport, Bihar, in the appeals filed by the latter. On merits, it was contended that the order of the Regional Transport Authority that route 'AB', though part of the routes for which renewal was asked, was a different route, and the State corporation had an exclusive right to ply omnibuses on route 'AB', did not affect the rights of the appellants to ply their omnibuses on routes, which were entirely different.
(2.)Against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, appeals were filed by the Rajya Transport, Bihar in all the cases, that is to say, in those cases in which the Rajya Transport, Bihar, had objected, and those in which it had not objected. While these appeals were pending, the State of Bihar, acting under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (64 of 1950) notified on April 20, 1959 as follows:
"No. R. T. Cor. 1/59-3090 - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (LXIV of 1950), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to establish with effect from the 1st May, 1959 a Road Transport Corporation, for the State of Bihar, to be called the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation.
2. The said Corporation shall with effect from the said date, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions which are at present being exercised and performed by the Rajya Transport, Bihar.
By order of the Governor of Bihar.
K. B. Sharma, Dy. Secy."
(3.)At the hearing of the appeals, the Government Advocate, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, appeared for the Road Transport Corporation. Objection was taken to the competency of the appeals on two grounds. In those cases in which the Rajya Transport, Bihar, had not objected to the renewal of the permits before the Regional Transport Authority, it was contended that it had no locus standi to file appeals. In those cases in which it had so objected, the ground was that the Road Transport Corporation could not, in law, represent ,the Rajya Transport, Bihar, in the appeals filed by the latter. On merits, it was contended that the order of the Regional Transport Authority that route 'AB', though part of the routes for which renewal was asked, was a different route, and the State corporation had an exclusive right to ply omnibuses on route 'AB', did not affect the rights of the appellants to ply their omnibuses on routes, which were entirely different.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.