ABDUL GAFOORPROPRIETOR SHAHEEN MOTOR SERVICE CHANNARYAPATNA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
LAWS(SC)-1961-4-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
April 12,1961
ABDUL GAFOOR PROPRIETOR,SHAHEEN MOTOR SERVICE,CHANNARYAPATNA.
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MYSORE
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
T N RAGHUNATHA REDDY VS. MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-1970-2-34] [RELIED ON]MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(SC)-1974-8-50] [RELIED ON]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. STATE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL U P LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-1976-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE OFFICER T T DEVASTHANAMS TIRUPATHI VS. K RAMACHANDRA NAIDU [LAWS(APH)-1964-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
M GANGAPPA VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1973-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
S VISWANATHAM VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(APH)-1976-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
A VISWANATHAM VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(APH)-1976-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
M MOHAN RAJU VS. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHITTOOR [LAWS(APH)-1977-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
A ABDUL SATTAY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1979-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT TRANSPORT DEPT [LAWS(APH)-1999-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
BALURAM DALURAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1966-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(MPH)-1970-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY [LAWS(MPH)-1973-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
S KANAGARAJ AND VS. GOVT OF T N [LAWS(MAD)-1990-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
D M THIPPESWAMY VS. MYSORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE [LAWS(SC)-1972-5-1] [APPLIED]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LUCKNOW VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-1974-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1966-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
GAURI SHANKAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1968-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION JAIPUR VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1976-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1978-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
JAMINDARA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS. SUPDT GOVT CENTRAL PRESS JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1986-10-77] [REFERRED TO]
REMESH KUMAR VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD [LAWS(KER)-2014-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
Premchand Jain VS. Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior [LAWS(MPH)-1976-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation VS. Various Private Operators (Transport) [LAWS(KAR)-1993-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
KSRTC VS. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM [LAWS(KER)-1968-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
DAMINENI SANGAYYA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1962-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
V.R. RAMAKRISHNAN, SRI RAMAKRISHNA BUS SERVICE AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1974-12-18] [REFERRED]
ASIA BI (M.S. SALAMATH TRANSPORTS) AND ANR. VS. RAVI ROADWAYS AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1965-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYANT TRAVELS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
THE BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1984-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
D. GOUTHAM KUMAR VS. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TAMIL NADU, CHEPAUK, MADRAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-1995-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
BABU VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2017-11-156] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Das Gupta, J. -
(1.)The petitioner, who is the proprietor of the Shaheen Motor Service, used to ply a motor bus for hire on the route Archalli to Saravanabelgola in Hassan District in the State of Mysore. A scheme under S. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 having been published by the Mysore Transport Undertaking, the petitioner as one of the persons affected thereby filed objections to the scheme before the State Government under S. 68-D (1) of the Act. The State Government, however, after considering the objections and hearing the petitioner approved the scheme, subject to a slight modification with which we are not concerned. This approval was given on December 22, 1959. In pursuance of this approved scheme the State Transport Undertaking-the 2nd respondent before us - made applications for permits but before the Regional Transport Authority could issue such permits the present petition was filed praying, in the first place, for a writ of certiorari to quash the scheme and some consequential directions, and secondly for a writ of "prohibition" to the Regional Transport Authority, Hassan District, who is the third respondent before us "to refrain from dealing with the applications for permit made by the 2nd respondent unless and until they are duly published and notice thereof is given to the petitioner and he is allowed to make his representation thereon regarding their compliance or otherwise with the conditions of S. 68-F (1) of the Chapter IV-A. After learned counsel for the petitioner had been heard, this Court by its order dated March 21, 1961, granted leave to the petitioner to amend the writ petition so as to confine it to the second prayer only and directed a rule to issue only in respect of this second prayer.
(2.)The only question with which we are therefore now concerned is whether a writ should issue prohibiting, the Regional Transport Authority, Hassan District, from dealing with the applications for permits made by the State Transport Undertaking "unless and until they are duly published and notice thereof is given to the petitioner and he is allowed to make his representations thereon.".
(3.)The petitioner's case as regards this prayer is that under the law no permit can be granted to the State Transport Undertaking until the applications for permit have been duly published and notice has been given to the petitioner of those applications. In support of this proposition learned counsel advanced two arguments - firstly, that S. 57(3) in Chapter IV of the Act, requires such prior publication with notice of the date before which representations in connection with the application may be submitted and that in consequence of S. 68-B of Chapter IV-A the above provisions of S. 57(3) of Chapter IV have to be followed. The second argument is that the Regional Transport Authority acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when dealing with applications for permits made under S. 68-F and so the petitioner who will be affected by the issue of the permits is entitled to notice.
(2.)The only question with which we are therefore now concerned is whether a writ should issue prohibiting, the Regional Transport Authority, Hassan District, from dealing with the applications for permits made by the State Transport Undertaking "unless and until they are duly published and notice thereof is given to the petitioner and he is allowed to make his representations thereon.".
(3.)The petitioner's case as regards this prayer is that under the law no permit can be granted to the State Transport Undertaking until the applications for permit have been duly published and notice has been given to the petitioner of those applications. In support of this proposition learned counsel advanced two arguments - firstly, that S. 57(3) in Chapter IV of the Act, requires such prior publication with notice of the date before which representations in connection with the application may be submitted and that in consequence of S. 68-B of Chapter IV-A the above provisions of S. 57(3) of Chapter IV have to be followed. The second argument is that the Regional Transport Authority acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when dealing with applications for permits made under S. 68-F and so the petitioner who will be affected by the issue of the permits is entitled to notice.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.