Skip to content


K. Mohamed Peer Vs. the State of Mysore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 20 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Kant19; AIR1957Mys19
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 64 and 64(1)
AppellantK. Mohamed Peer
RespondentThe State of Mysore and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.G.S. Ullal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.M. Chandrasekhar, Adv. General and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, Adv.
Excerpt:
..... - objections were heard and the state transport authority decided that there was no good reasons to revise the timings. clause (f) of section 64(1) which is the only provision that can apply to a case like the one on hand enables a person providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or any condition attached thereto, to prefer an appeal against the grant or the attaching of the condition. in this case, the only clause which can have any bearing on the matter is clearly inapplicable as the condition precedent did not exist......decided that there was no good reasons to revise the timings. respondent two preferred an appeal to government (respondent one) against this decision. respondent one has passed orders altering the timings for running of the petitioner's service. as a result of this alteration the petitioner's state carriage which was reaching kankapura at 1-30 p.m. and departing to mandya at 1-40 p.m. was to leave kanakapura at 3-15 p.m. which meant a halt at kanakapura for over an hour and a half. this order of government is challenged on various grounds. but it appeal's to us that it is enough to consider only one of the grounds, viz., that government had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.2. section 64 of the motor vehicles act provides for appeals. clause (f) of section 64(1) which is.....
Judgment:

Sreenivasa Rau, J.

1. The petitioner is a holder of a permit to ply a State Carriage service between Bangalore and Mandya via Kanakapura. Respondent two holds a permit for running a State Carriage Service between Mandya and Kanakapura. It is stated by the petitioner that the State Transport Authority published a notification in the issue of the Mysore Gazette dated, 5-11-1954, proposing a change of timings in regard to petitioner's service and calling for representations or objections. Objections were heard and the State Transport Authority decided that there was no good reasons to revise the timings. Respondent two preferred an appeal to Government (respondent one) against this decision. Respondent one has passed orders altering the timings for running of the petitioner's service. As a result of this alteration the petitioner's State carriage which was reaching Kankapura at 1-30 p.m. and departing to Mandya at 1-40 p.m. was to leave Kanakapura at 3-15 p.m. which meant a halt at Kanakapura for over an hour and a half. This order of Government is challenged on various grounds. But it appeal's to us that it is enough to consider only one of the grounds, viz., that Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

2. Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for appeals. Clause (f) of Section 64(1) which Is the only provision that can apply to a case like the one on hand enables a person providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or any condition attached thereto, to prefer an appeal against the grant or the attaching of the condition. The petitioner's contention is that as respondent two had not opposed the grant of a permit to the petitioner and as such opposition was a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of appeal, no appeal on this matter could be entertained by Government.

It will be noticed that though an appeal may be preferred not only against the grant of a permit, the person preferring an appeal should have opposed the grant of the permit itself and it is not enough if his Objection related to any condition relating to the permit in question. Even assuming that the timings assigned for running of a State Carriage Service are to be regarded as a condition attached to the permit, it will be of no avail if a person who wishes to prefer an appeal in regard to such condition has not opposed the grant of a permit itself.

3. It is not disputed in this case that respondent two did not oppose the grant of a permit to the petitioner. The right of appeal is a creature of statute and it has to be brought within the clear terms of the provision for appeal. In this case, the only clause which can have any bearing on the matter is clearly inapplicable as the condition precedent did not exist. The order passed by Government in an appeal which it could not entertain must be held to be without jurisdiction.

4. We accordingly quash the order of Government bearing No. T. 7567/R.T. 5--55--284 dated 12-1-1956. The petitioner will get his costs from respondents one and two. (Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-).

5. Order quashed.


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