Skip to content


D. Siddaramappa Vs. the State of Mysore and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 222 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Kant12; AIR1959Mys12; (1958)36MysLJ466
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 64; Motor Vehicles Rules - Rule 147
AppellantD. Siddaramappa
RespondentThe State of Mysore and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB.S. Puttasiddiah, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.M. Chandrasekhar, Adv. for ;Adv. General and ;Maheshwarappa, Adv. for ;G. Chennappa, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....of forfeiture clause in agreement. however earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest. - in my opinion, the provisions of this clause clearly indicate that the legislature did not intend to grant a right of appeal to government in a case where the state or regional transport authority refused to vary any conditions of a permit......jurisdiction to pass the said order. in other words, it was contended before us that there was no right of appeal against an order of this kind allowed by the motor vehicles act. the right of appeal against an order passed by the regional transport authority or state transport authority is given by section 64 of the motor vehicles act.the said section gives a person the right of appeal against an order of the regional transport authority or state transport authority in the cases mentioned in the various clauses thereof. it was contended before us on behalf of the petitioner that the present case docs not fall within any of the said clauses of section 64 of the motor vehicles act and therefore there is no right of appeal against the said decision of the transport authority to the.....
Judgment:

S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.

1. The petitioner before us is the proprietor of a bus service known as Sri Mallinatha Motor Service. Respondent 2 is the owner of another bus service known as jagadeesh Motor Service, Davaugere. The petitioner obtained a permit sometime in November 1950 to ply his service from Chital-drug to Davangere via Barhmasagara, Bilichod and Anaji. Respondent 2 in February 1951 got a permit to ply his bus service from Sokke to Davangere via Hosakere, Bilichod and Anaji. A portion of the two routes, that is to say the route given to the petitioner and the route, given to Respondent 2, was common -- that is the portion which fell between Davangere and Bilichod.

In the original permit granted to the petitioner 5 p.m. was the time fixed For departure of his bus from Davangere to Chitaldrug, and similarly the time fixed in the permit granted to Respondent 2 for departure from Davangere of his bus to Sokke was 5-30 p.m. Thereafter on 21-8-1952 on an application made by Respondent 2 to the Deputy Commissioner (Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority), the time of departure of his bus service from Davangere was changed to 4 p.m. On 13-3-1954 the petitioner by making an application got the time of the departure of his bus service from Davangere changed to 3 p.m.

Thereafter Respondent 2 got his line extended from Sokke to Kottur. It should be mentioned that prior to that date Respondent 2 had also got his route extended from Davangere to Bada. On 9-9 1954 Respondent 2 applied for fixing the lime of departure of his service from Davangere earlier than 3 p.m. which was the time fixed for departure of the petitioner's bus service from Davangere. This application which was originally made to the Regional Transport Authority was rejected on 1-12-1954. Thereafter Respondent 2 made another application on 3-1-1955 to the State Transport Authority which was also rejected.

Respondent 2 then preferred an appeal against the said order of the State Transport Authority, refusing to change the existing time of departure of his bus service from Davangere, to Government. The Government reversed the decision of the State Transport Authority and sanctioned the departure of Respondent 2's service from Davangere at 3 p.m. and altered the time of departure of the petitioner's bus service from Davangere to 3-30 p.m. instead of 3 p.m. as it originally stood. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the Government.

2. The only ground urged before us by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of this petition was that the Government had no jurisdiction to pass the said order. In other words, it was contended before us that there was no right of appeal against an order of this kind allowed by the Motor Vehicles Act. The right of appeal against an order passed by the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority is given by Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The said section gives a person the right of appeal against an order of the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority in the cases mentioned in the various clauses thereof. It was contended before us on behalf of the petitioner that the present case docs not fall within any of the said clauses of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore there is no right of appeal against the said decision of the Transport Authority to the Government.

3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent 2 on the other hand contended before us that the present case comes under Clause (a) of Section 64 of the said Act. The said clause reacts as follows :

'Appeals.--Any person -

(a) aggrieved by the refusal of the (State) or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit; or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him --....

may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard'.

The contention of the learned Advocate for the 2nd respondent was that the timings fixed in a permit must be held to be conditions attached to such a permit and if therefore his client is aggrieved by the time of departure fixed in a permit, he can be said to be aggrieved by a condition attached to the permit and has therefore a right of appeal under Clause (a) of Section 64 of the Act. In this case, according to him, the original time for departure from Davangere, which was fixed at 4 p.m. was not suitable to his client and the application which was made by him was an application to alter the said timing. When that application was refused he had a right to prefer an appeal to Government under Clause (a) of Section 64 inasmuch as he was aggrieved by the condition attached to the permit granted to him. In my opinion, this contention of Respondent 2 cannot be accepted as sound.

4. As observed by their Lordships of the Madras High Court in the case of Krishna Murthy v. C. D. A. Transport Co. : AIR1933Mad321 , in which case also the same argument which is now advanced before us by Respondent 2 was urged, it is not a grievance which accrued or which arose subsequent to the grant of the permit, that can be agitated in an appeal under Clause (a) of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Their Lordships further observed that to hold in a case where the grievance accrued subsequent to the grant of the permit, the same can be agitated in appeal, would be to put an unnatural construction on the clause which was not intended by the Legislature when the clause was enacted.

Their Lordships also held in that case that the right of appeal under Clause (a) has to be exercised within the period of thirty days from the date of the order granting the permit under Rule 147, and the grievance, if any, regarding the condition that exists in the permit must be one that existed by the date of the grant of that permit. I am in entire agreement with the view taken by their Lordships in the said case. This view, as it appears to me, is fortified by the fact that under Clause (b) of Section 64, the Legislature had allowed a right of appeal to Government inter alia against an order varying the conditions of a permit.

The said clause provides that any person aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof, may prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority. The clause, therefore, although in clear terms allows a right of appeal against an order varying the conditions of the permit does not mention anything about such right in cases where there is a refusal to vary the conditions of the permit. In my opinion, the provisions of this clause clearly indicate that the Legislature did not intend to grant a right of appeal to Government in a case where the State or Regional Transport Authority refused to vary any conditions of a permit.

I should at this stage mention that I am assuming for the purpose of this petition that the timings given in a permit are conditions of the permit. I should also make it clear that it was not necessary for us to deal in this petition with the question as to whether or not the time mentioned in a permit was a condition of the permit itself. That question is left open to be decided in a proper case. It would be sufficient for disposing of this petition to hold that there is no right of appeal, even though the time be a condition of the permit, against an order refusing to alter the said time contained in a permit.

5. In the result, therefore, I hold that the order of the Government reversing the order of the State Transport Authority was passed without jurisdiction and the same is quashed. The petitioner will get his costs which is fixed at Rs. 100 from Respondent 2 only.

Hombe Gowda, J.

6. I agree.

7. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //