Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 22, 1955, passed by the Letters Patent Bench of the Nagpur High Court reversing those of a single Judge of that Court, dated December 13, 1954, refusing to issue a writ in the nature of a certiorari.
(2.) THE facts of this case lie in a short compass and may be stated as follows : The Suwarna Transport Company Limited, which will be referred to as the first respondent in the course of this judgment, held seven permits for running buses on the Buldana -Malkapur route, as the sole operator on that route. It applied for another permit for the same route. The appellant, The New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd., as also another party called the Navjivan Transport Service (not cited in this Court) applied for a similar permit on that route. On May 26, 1953, all the three applicants aforesaid were heard by the Regional Transport Authority of Amraoti, which is the third respondent in this Court, in connection with the permit applied for. Consideration of the several applications was postponed, but a resolution was passed to the effect that "No one service should have monopoly on Buldana -Malkapur route". On March 30, 1954, another meeting of the Regional Transport Authority took place and the first respondent was granted the permit. The appellant's application was rejected on the ground that the police report was against it. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority (constituted under R. 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act), Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur, which is the second respondent to this appeal. The appellant challenged the correctness of the police report against it and applied to the District Superintendent of Police personally to verify the facts stated in the first report on the basis of which the appellant's application for permit had been rejected, as aforesaid. The police made a further report, which was placed before the second respondent. That further report by the police was read out to the parties by the Chairman of the Appellate Authority at the time of the hearing of the appeal. At the hearing no objection appears to have been raised by any of the parties to the course adopted by the second respondent. By its order dated July 29, 1954, the second respondent set aside the order of the third respondent, allowed the appeal and ordered the permit to be issued to the appellant. The first respondent moved the High Court at Nagpur for a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution, substantially on two grounds, namely, (1) that the order passed by the second respondent was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, and (2) that it contravened the principles of natural justice. The first ground was founded on the allegation that the second respondent had misread the police report, and the second on the allegation that the revised report by the police had not been shown to the petitioner who had been afforded no "real and effective opportunity to deal with the report or to meet any relevant allegations made therein, and to study that report and make his submissions in regard thereto before the appeal was decided." The appellant and the second respondent showed cause against the rule issued by the court. The appellant while showing cause, admitted that the third respondent had rejected its application on the basis of the police report dated March 27, 1954, which "was full of mistakes and falsehoods," that it moved the District Superintendent of Police personally to verify the contents of the said report and that the fresh report submitted by the police after due verification had absolved the appellant from the allegations of misconduct contained in the first report. It also controverted the ground that there was any mistake apparent on the face of the record. The fresh report submitted by the police after verification at the appellant's request was received by the second respondent and the Chairman read the same during the hearing of the appeal that, therefore, it was wrong to suggest that there had been a failure of justice. The second respondent also showed cause and corroborated the appellant's statement that the first police report had been subsequently modified by the District Superintendent of Police by the report dated May 13, 1954, which showed that the previous report was "based on some misunderstanding." It was also stated that the report was actually read out to the parties by the Chairman while the appeal was being heard. The petition under Arts. 226 and 227 made, as aforesaid, by the first respondent was heard by a single Judge (Mr. Justice V. R. Sen) who by his orders dated December 13, 1954, discharged the rule with costs. In the course of his judgment the learned Judge after referring in detail to the orders of the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, that is to say, the second and third respondents, observed that there was no substance in the contention that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority was opposed to the principles of natural justice and had operated to the prejudice of the first responded; and that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Judge also pointed out that when the report was brought to the notice of the first respondent, it did not indicate that it wished to controvert the report.
(3.) THE first respondent preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent and repeated its grounds of attack against the orders of the Appellate Authority. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Hidayatullah and Mr. Justice S. P. Kotwal. The Letters Patent Bench seemed to be inclined to negative the plea that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record and pointed out that though the language used by the second respondent was ambiguous and not quite accurate, it was possible to take the view that it had in fact considered the subsequent police report when it observed that the police had practically absolved the appellant from all blame except on a minor question, not necessary to be referred to in detail here. On the second ground it differed from the learned single Judge and came to the conclusion "that the Appellate Authority erred in rushing through without giving a proper and effective chance to the appellant to state its case." In the result it granted a writ quashing the order of the Appellate Authority and directing it to rehear the appeal in the light of the observations made in the course of the judgment.;