Skip to content


B. Shivanna Vs. Board of Revenue in Mysore, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 283 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Kant23; AIR1959Mys23; (1958)36MysLJ757
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 64
AppellantB. Shivanna
RespondentBoard of Revenue in Mysore, Bangalore and ors.
Appellant AdvocateV. Krishna Murthi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB.S. Puttasiddiah, ;G. Lingappa, Advs. and ;D.M. Chandrasekher, Adv. for ;Adv. General
Excerpt:
.....filed against an order of the board of revenue dated 6-6-1957. the contention of the petitioner before us is that the board of revenue has, on an erroneous view of the matter failed to exercise jurisdiction. having set aside that order of the regional transport authority, kolar, the stale transport authority made an order that it was open to the respondent to propose suitable timings for his service and (get) the same assigned by the state transport authority which is the competent authority to as-sign timings on a through route like this and till then timings assigned to the respondent's (present petitioner's) service by the chairman, regional transport authority, kolar on 10-7-1956 permitting him to depart from sidlaghatta at 5 p. 4. it was urged before us by the learned counsel for..........predecessor. in that permit no timings were mentioned. it was granted by the chairman, mysore state transport authority. thereafter, it appears, the regional transport authority of kolar district, within which a part of the route between bangalore to sidlaghatta falls, gave him a permit, no. bp. 160/53-54, in which the timings for the trips between sidlaghatta and the district border of kolar district were fixed.the 4th respondent who, as i have mentioned, had also a permit in the said route, thereafter ascertaining from the regional transport authority. kolar, about it, preferred an appeal to the state transport authority, against the said order of the regional transport authority, kolar, giving the said permit no. bp. 160/53-54 whereby timings were fixed for the trips between.....
Judgment:

S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.

1. This petition has been filed against an order of the Board of Revenue dated 6-6-1957. The contention of the petitioner before us is that the Board of Revenue has, on an erroneous view of the matter failed to exercise jurisdiction. The matter arises in this way :

2. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner before us, one Gopalan, had a permit for the route between Bangalore and Sidlaghatta, the distance of which is 50 miles. The fourth respondent also had a permit in respect of the said route. On 17-12-1952, a fresh permit was granted to the petitioner's predecessor. In that permit no timings were mentioned. It was granted by the Chairman, Mysore State Transport Authority. Thereafter, it appears, the Regional Transport Authority of Kolar District, within which a part of the route between Bangalore to Sidlaghatta falls, gave him a permit, No. BP. 160/53-54, in which the timings for the trips between Sidlaghatta and the district border of Kolar District were fixed.

The 4th respondent who, as I have mentioned, had also a permit in the said route, thereafter ascertaining from the Regional Transport Authority. Kolar, about it, preferred an appeal to the State Transport Authority, against the said order of the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, giving the said permit No. BP. 160/53-54 whereby timings were fixed for the trips between Sidlaghatta and the District border of Kolar. In that appeal it was contended that the Regional Transport Authority had no authority to fix timings and the jurisdiction to fix timings was only of the State Transport Authority.

Pending the hearing of this appeal, the State Transport Authority gave a direction to the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, to change the said timings. Thereupon, the Regional Transport Authority at Kolar fixed certain other timings for the departure of the petitioner's bus from Sidlaghatta. Thereafter when the appeal finally came up for hearing before the State Transport Authority, the Stale Transport Authority by its order dated 5-12-1956 set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, fixing the time for leaving of the Petitioner's bus from Sidlaghatta for the border of the Kolar District on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to fix timings of buses and it was the State Transport Authority which had the jurisdiction to fix such timings. Having set aside that order of the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, the Stale Transport Authority made an order that it was open to the respondent to propose suitable timings for his service and (get) the same assigned by the State Transport Authority which is the competent authority to as-sign timings on a through route like this and till then timings assigned to the Respondent's (present petitioner's) service by the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Kolar on 10-7-1956 permitting him to depart from Sidlaghatta at 5 p.m. with continuation timings in Bangalore District limits and retaining the forward journey timings from Bangalore may he continued till timings are finalised by the State Transport Authority to the service of the respondent.

3. Against this order, the petitioner appealed to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal on two grounds. In the first place, it held that the assignment of timings to the appellant's service on a through route is a matter which rested with the State Transport Authority and there can be no appeal against the decision of the State Transport Authority fixing such timings. The other ground on which the decision of the Board of Revenue was based was that even if the present appeal is maintainable in law even then it is seen that the State Transport Authority who is the competent authority to assign timings for running buses on a through route has not passed final orders and the appeal is therefore premature. On these two grounds, the Board of Revenue dismissed the said appeal. The present petition has been filed against the said decision of the Board of Revenue.

4. It was urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue failed to exercise jurisdiction in the matter. In other words it was contended by him that the Board of Revenue, on the erroneous view of the matter refused to entertain this appeal. In my opinion, the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is sound and should be accepted. Referring to the decision of the State Transport Authority, it seems to be quite clear that the State Transport Authority was sitting on appeal against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority fixing timings for the running of the petitioner's bus.

It did not purport to exercise its original jurisdiction and to fix the timings itself. It proceeded to consider whether or not the decision of the Regional Transport Authority was correct and whether it was within the Jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to make the order fixing the timings and on the view it held, viz., that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to fix up the timings of the buses, it purported to set aside that order of the Regional Transport Authority. In other words, it purported to sit on appeal against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority.

5. It has been contended before us by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the State Transport Authority cannot, in such a matter, sit on appeal against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. He referred us to Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act which lays down the grounds on which an appeal would lie to the State Transport Authority against the Regional Transport Authority. None of the grounds mentioned in that section cover the pre-sent case and no right of appeal is given in the said section against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority fixing the timings of the running of the buses.

Therefore the State Transport Authority could not exercise its appellate jurisdiction in respect of the present matter, i.e., in respect of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority fixing the timings of the buses. Undoubtedly the State Transport Authority has jurisdiction, which may be properly described as original jurisdiction, to fix timings of the buses.

But it appears to me that the State Transport Authority did not purport to exercise the said jurisdiction.If it was purporting to exercise its said jurisdiction,then the State Transport Authority would have itselffixed the timings of the running of the petitioner'sbus.This it did not do. The State Transport Authority contented itself by setting aside the order of theRegional Transport Authority and only directed, asan interim measure, that the timings already fixed bythe Regional Transport Authority, pursuant to itsdirections be continued until the matter is finalised bythe State Transport Authority. In my opinion, theState Transport Authority clearly was purporting toexercise appellate jurisdiction and not its originaljurisdiction.

6. If therefore the State Transport Authority it acting in the exercise of its appellate power and if the order in question had been made by the said authority in exercise of the said power, then under the amended section of the Motor Vehicles Act an appeal would lie to the Board of Revenue. The amended Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act inter alia provides that any person aggrieved by an appellate order passed under Sub-section (1) by any authority other than the State Government may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner appeal to the prescribed authority which shall give such person and the authority which passed such order an opportunity of being heard and pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

It therefore follows that under this provision of the Act, an appeal lies to the prescribed authority against an appellate order passed under Sub-section (1) of the said section. This is an appellate order purported to have been passed by the State Transport Authority in exercise of its appellate powers under the Act and an appeal therefore would lie to the Board of Revenue against the said order. It would, of course, be for the Board of Revenue to determine whether or not such an order could be passed under the. Act or, in other words, it would be for the Board of Revenue to determine whether or not the State Transport Authority had the power to interfere with the decision of the Regional Transport Authority in appeal.

It seems to me that the order which was passed by the State Transport Authority was an order passed in appeal and that being so, there is a right of appeal against the said order to the Board of Revenue. What order the Board of Revenue would make when it comes to hear the appeal is a different question.

7. I therefore hold that the view taken by the Board of Revenue, viz., that inasmuch as the appeal before it related to the assignment of timings to the appellant's service on a through route and as that is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority, no appeal would lie to the Board of Revenue is erroneous. I am also of the view that the view taken by the Board of Revenue, viz., that no final orders have been passed by the State Transport Authority is equally untenable. The final order has been passed, as I have indicated, on the appeal which was preferred against the said decision of the Regional Transport Authority.

8. In the result therefore, the order of the Board of Revenue is set aside. The matter is sent back to the Board of Revenue to be decided in accordance with the law and in accordance with the opinion expressed in this judgment. We however direct that pending the decision of the appeal, the timings assigned to the petitioner's, service by the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Kolar on 10-7-1956 permitting him to depart from Sidlaghatta at 5 p.m. with continuation timings in Bangalore District limits and retaining the forward journey timings from Bangalore, may be continued In the circum-stances of this case, each party will bear and pay its own costs of this petition.

A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.

9. I agree.

10. Order accordingly.


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