RAMAN AND RAMAN LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MADRAS
LAWS(SC)-1959-2-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
February 18,1959
RAMAN AND RAMAN LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADRAS
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
AJANTHA TRANSPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED COIMBATORE KANAN MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED KANAN MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. T V K TRANSPORTS PULAMPATTI COIMBATORE DISTRICT:A E A VEIRANA CHETTIAR:PRABHU TRANSPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1974-9-21] [REFERRED TO]STATE OF ASSAM VS. AJIT KUMAR SARMA [LAWS(SC)-1964-10-10] [RELIED ON]
BAIJNATH SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1981-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
R SRINIVASAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2003-8-108] [REFERRED TO]
JANARDHANA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1966-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV MOHAN LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1992-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATHAM AND BROS VS. SOWDAMBIGAI MOTORS SERVICE [LAWS(SC)-1963-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
B RAJAGOPALA NAIDU VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MADRAS [LAWS(SC)-1964-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
KANNAN AND ORS. VS. THE COMMISSIONER, PANRUTI MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(MAD)-1997-9-123] [REFERRED TO]
SOWDAMBIGAI MOTOR SERVICE VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-1979-7-67] [REFERRED]
NEW KERALA BUS TRANSPORTS VS. RTA CANNANORE [LAWS(KER)-1965-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ARMAN ALI MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-1985-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
GODI BALAKRISHNAIAH VS. GOVT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-1982-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
ARIF AKHTAR KHAN VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL U P LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-1985-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ORS. [LAWS(TD)-2015-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE GAS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VS. PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD [LAWS(APTE)-2015-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
S Sharravvanan VS. State of Tamil Nadu [LAWS(MAD)-2003-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
BARHAM DUTT VS. PEOPLES CO-OPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1960-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
SAHELA RAM SON OF CH DHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1967-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
SIBARAM PANDA VS. COLLECTORCUTTACK [LAWS(ORI)-1982-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
BINOD RAO VS. MINOCHER RUSTOM MASANI [LAWS(BOM)-1976-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
ESCORTS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1984-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE MAHABUBNAGAR TOWN MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT VS. BEESANNA GOUD [LAWS(APH)-1981-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KAR)-1962-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
P N CHINNASAMY VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
K M KRISHNAN VS. M VENKATESAN [LAWS(MAD)-1963-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND PRADHAN AND OTHERS VS. VICE [LAWS(ALL)-1993-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
MANDEEP SETHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-2-112] [REFERRED TO]
P. VENKATACHALAM VS. TAHSILDAR [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-120] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA RANI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
BIDYADHARI SPILL MATSYAJIBI SAMABAYA SAMITY VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1960-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
P.A. NATARAJAN VS. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-1961-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
KASIREDDY VARAHALU VS. STATE OF A. P. HOME (TRANSPORT III) DEPARTMENT [LAWS(APH)-1966-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ABDUL KHALEQUE OSTAGAR & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1985-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR PRASAD SAO AYODHYA PRASAD RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE:STATE OF BIHAR:STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1975-12-45] [CITED]
RAMA VILAS SERVICE F LIMITED VS. C CHANDRASEKARAN [LAWS(SC)-1963-12-2] [REFERRED]
PTC INDIA LTD VS. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2010-3-1] [REFERRED]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED VS. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2013-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
P MARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-377] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KHORE SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK AND PURVATHA SANGH LIMITED VS. MOHANRAO GANPATRAO SHINDE [LAWS(BOM)-1985-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
T D KUMAR AND BROS PRIVATE LTD VS. IRON AND STEEL CONTROLLER [LAWS(CAL)-1960-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED; INDIAN OXYGEN LIMITED; BENGAL ENAMEL WORKS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1967-12-19] [REFERRED]
B.K. AGARWAL VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KUMAON AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1961-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE VS. STATE [LAWS(ET)-2011-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHREESTHA FLEXIBLE PACKS P LTD VS. REGIONAL REHABILITATION COMMITTEE AGRA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-216] [REFERRED TO]
QUILON DIST PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1995-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
KASIREDDY VARAHALU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HOME TRANSPORT III DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1966-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
Y VENKANNACHOWDARY VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION GENERAL HYDERABAD DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-1980-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
KANUMURI ANJI RAJU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1960-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
S P MANOCHA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1972-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office, Amritsar VS. Amrik Singh and others [LAWS(ALL)-1964-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV CHARAN DAS SHARMA VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-1967-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
MORE RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB DRUGS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1988-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
CONSUMER EDU. AND RESEARCH CENTRE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1983-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SARDAR ANANT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1969-12-8] [REFERRED]
TULSI RAM AGARWALLA VS. ROAD TRANSPORT CO [LAWS(PAT)-1961-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
R ABDULLA ROWTHER S GOPALAN NAIR VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MADRAS:K DAMODARAN NAIR [LAWS(SC)-1959-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
Manocha (S.P.) VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1972-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH BEHERA VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER SOUTHERN DIVISION AND [LAWS(ORI)-1983-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
GURU NANAK TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BIKANER [LAWS(RAJ)-1967-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
JAIDEV SINGH AND ANR. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1981-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
MANNARKATT UNION MOTOR SERVICE MANNARKATT VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALGHAT [LAWS(KER)-1962-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
MARIA PLASTO PACK PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR U P FINANCIAL CORPORATION KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-148] [REFERRED TO]
AD HOC COMMITTEE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD VS. GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA [LAWS(CAL)-1982-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
K. Subba Rao J. -
(1.)This appeal by Special Leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras raises the question of interpretation of S. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939), as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act, 1948 (Mad. XX of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act. On February 19, 1955, the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, Madras State, the second respondent herein, called for applications under S. 57(2) of the Act for grant of a stage carriage permit on the Saliamangalam Kodavasal route. The appellant and the fourth respondent K. M. Shanmugam, Proprietor, K. M. S. Transport, Ammapet, Tanjore District, along with others, applied for the grant of the said permit. The Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on April 19, 1955, after hearing the representations of the applicants, granted the permit to the appellant. The fourth respondent and two others, preferred appeals against the said order to the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, the third respondent herein. The Central Road Traffic Board by its order dated June 25, 1955, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the permit to the fourth respondent. The appellant preferred a Revision Petition against that order to the first respondent, the State of Madras, but the first respondent rejected the petition by its order dated October 14, 1955. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ Petition (No. 852 of I955) the High Court of Madras under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders of the Central Road Traffic Board and the State of Madras. Rajagopalan J. of the said High Court by his order dated May 1, 1956, duashed the order of the Government and directed the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which had been constituted in place of the Central Road Traffic Board to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Against the judgment of the learned Judge, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent and the appellate Bench of that High Court, consisting of Rajamannar C. J. and Ramaswami J., set aside the order of Rajagopalan J. and restored the order of the Central Road Traffic Board. The appellant with special leave filed the present appeal against that judgment of the High Court.
(2.)Mr. Pathak, appearing for the appellant, raised before us the following two points:(i) The appeal filed by the fourth respondent against the order of the Regional Transport Authority to the Central Road Traffic Board was barred by limitation and the Board acted illegally in disposing of the appeal without deciding the question of limitation; and (ii) the appellant had the fundamental right to carry on the business of transport subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law as on the date he applied for a permit or at any rate when the Regional Transport Authority issued the permit to him, and that the Central Road Traffic Board committed an error, evident on the face of the record, in disposing of the appeal in accordance with the new restrictions imposed by law made pending the appeal before it. Stated as a legal proposition, the contention is that the appellant had acquired a vested right to carry on the business of transport an that the same could not be defeated by a subsequent law made pending the appeal, which was only prospective in character.
(3.)The first argument need not detain us, for the learned Counsel, in view of the finding of the High Court that as a matter of fact the appeal to the Central Road Traffic Board was not barred, fairly did not press it before us. This leaves us with the second and the only argument in the case. To appreciate the contention it is necessary to set out some more relevant facts:On March 28, 1953 the Government made an order, G. O. Ms. No. 1037 Home, purporting to be under S. 43A of the Act. The material part of that order reads: "(1) That additional buses should not be permitted to ply on existing routes unless there is a clear need for increase in the number of buses plying on a particular route and wasteful competition should be discouraged but healthy competition where there is room should be encouraged and,
(2) that the transport authorities while granting stage carriage permits should work up to the minimum of 5 permits with a spare ous for each operator and the issue of pernits should be so regulated as not to encourage benamidars on one hand and inefficient operators on the other."
On November 15, 1954, in supersession of paragraph 2 of the above order, the Government issued an order, G. O. Ms. No. 3353 Home, to the following effect:
"The Governor of Madras hereby directs that each viable stage carriage unit in this State shall consist of not less than 10 bases and that in the matter of grant of stage carriage permits, other things being equal, and with a view to build up such viable units, the following shall be the order of preference:
(1) Operators with less than 10 buses but nearer the mark of 10.
(2) Operators with 10 and more buses.
(3) Others including new entrants.
The Governor also directs that in order to facilitate the amalgamation of existing small units into viable units transfer of permits shall be allowed liberally."
On June 15, 1955, the Government issued another order, G. O. Ms. No. 1689 Home, whereby the Central Road Traffic Board was informed that pending further orders of Government after re-examination of the question of formation of viable units of stage carriages, the orders in para. (2) of G. O. Ms. No. 1037 Home dated 28th March, 1953, would be in force. The effect of this order was that the first order was restored pending final orders.
(2.)Mr. Pathak, appearing for the appellant, raised before us the following two points:(i) The appeal filed by the fourth respondent against the order of the Regional Transport Authority to the Central Road Traffic Board was barred by limitation and the Board acted illegally in disposing of the appeal without deciding the question of limitation; and (ii) the appellant had the fundamental right to carry on the business of transport subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law as on the date he applied for a permit or at any rate when the Regional Transport Authority issued the permit to him, and that the Central Road Traffic Board committed an error, evident on the face of the record, in disposing of the appeal in accordance with the new restrictions imposed by law made pending the appeal before it. Stated as a legal proposition, the contention is that the appellant had acquired a vested right to carry on the business of transport an that the same could not be defeated by a subsequent law made pending the appeal, which was only prospective in character.
(3.)The first argument need not detain us, for the learned Counsel, in view of the finding of the High Court that as a matter of fact the appeal to the Central Road Traffic Board was not barred, fairly did not press it before us. This leaves us with the second and the only argument in the case. To appreciate the contention it is necessary to set out some more relevant facts:On March 28, 1953 the Government made an order, G. O. Ms. No. 1037 Home, purporting to be under S. 43A of the Act. The material part of that order reads: "(1) That additional buses should not be permitted to ply on existing routes unless there is a clear need for increase in the number of buses plying on a particular route and wasteful competition should be discouraged but healthy competition where there is room should be encouraged and,
(2) that the transport authorities while granting stage carriage permits should work up to the minimum of 5 permits with a spare ous for each operator and the issue of pernits should be so regulated as not to encourage benamidars on one hand and inefficient operators on the other."
On November 15, 1954, in supersession of paragraph 2 of the above order, the Government issued an order, G. O. Ms. No. 3353 Home, to the following effect:
"The Governor of Madras hereby directs that each viable stage carriage unit in this State shall consist of not less than 10 bases and that in the matter of grant of stage carriage permits, other things being equal, and with a view to build up such viable units, the following shall be the order of preference:
(1) Operators with less than 10 buses but nearer the mark of 10.
(2) Operators with 10 and more buses.
(3) Others including new entrants.
The Governor also directs that in order to facilitate the amalgamation of existing small units into viable units transfer of permits shall be allowed liberally."
On June 15, 1955, the Government issued another order, G. O. Ms. No. 1689 Home, whereby the Central Road Traffic Board was informed that pending further orders of Government after re-examination of the question of formation of viable units of stage carriages, the orders in para. (2) of G. O. Ms. No. 1037 Home dated 28th March, 1953, would be in force. The effect of this order was that the first order was restored pending final orders.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.