Skip to content


H.C. Narayanappa Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petns. Nos. 2023, 1238 and 1208 of 1966
Judge
Reported inAIR1969Kant266; AIR1969Mys266; (1969)1MysLJ19
ActsMotor Vehicles Act - Sections 63
AppellantH.C. Narayanappa
RespondentMysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors.
Excerpt:
.....reddy and devaraja mudaliar secured permits with respect to short distance of 89 miles where as permit granted to petitioner authorized operation over distance of 249 miles - nothing to support petitioner's complaint of discrimination - petition dismissed. held see para 11. - sections 34 & 38 :[k.ramanna,j] suit for declaration and injunction - plaintiffs claiming to be owners of suit house there was oral partition between parties whereby suit house was allotted to plaintiffs - defendant denied partition and claimed to be in possession memo of partition and partition map produced by plaintiff, though unregistered documents, showed his possession over suit house - defendants were in no way related to same they failed to produce any document to prove ownership held, defendants are..........venkatasubba rao to narayanappa on the ground of his superior qualifications. although the permit granted to venkatasubba rao was set aside by the state transport appellate tribunal, the revenue appellate tribunal restored it in the appeal which venkatasubba rao preferred, and the ground on which it was restored was that between venkatasubba rao and narayanappa, venkatasubba rao who possessed superior qualifications was rightly preferred by the regional transport authority.if that was the ground on which the revenue appellate tribunal restored the permit granted to venkatasubba rao, narayanappa cannot in this court ask us to examine the relative merits as between himself and venkatasubba rao, and ask us to make a reassessment of the whole matter, since it is inconvertible and it.....
Judgment:

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. The three Writ Petitions concern the grant of permits either in respect of the route between Bangalore and Madanapalli or in respect of the route between Madanapalli and Bangalore, by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal in the second appeals. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal granted the permits in two cases, the Regional Transport Authority in one, and the State Transport Authority in the fourth. There were three applicants for a permit between Bangalore and Madanapalli and only one in respect of the route between Madanapalli and Bangalore. Narayanappa, Rangappa Reddy and Devaraja Mudaliar were the applicants for permits in respect of the routes between Bangalore and Madanapalli. Narayanappa was the earliest applicant, Rangappa Reddy, the next and Devaraja Mudaliar the third. Venkatasubba Rao made an application in respect of the route between Madanapalli and Bangalore after Narayanappa had made his application and before Rangappa Reddy made his.

2. Venkatasubba Rao his permit from the Regional Transport Authority. Devaraja Mudaliar got it from the State Transport Appellate Tribunal after the Regional Transport Authority had dismissed his application. Narayanappa got no permit from any one since the Regional Transport Authority refused his permit and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Revenue Appellate Tribunal dismissed his appeals.

But in an appeal preferred by him in respect of the route between Bangalore and Nellore. Narayanappa was granted a permit by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Devaraja Mudaliar's application was Authority, but the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed his appeal, and the further appeal preferred from that order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by Narayanappa who is one of the objectors was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal.

3. Narayanappa who is disappointed with the grant of the permit to Venkatasubba Rao, Rangappa Reddy and Devaraja Mudaliar, has presented these three writ petitions. In writ Petition No. 1238 of 1966, he challenges the grant of the permit to Rangappa Reddy, and in Writ Petition No. 2023 of 1966 he challenges the grant of a permit to Devaraja Mudaliar.

4. Quite few submissions are made in support of these three writ petitions, the first was that although Rangappa Reddy and Devaraja Mudaliar were able to get their permits at one stage or the other, the petitioner's application for a permit was wrongly refused by the application of standards other than those applied when considering the merits of the applications presented by Venkatasubba Rao, Rangappa Reddy and Devaraja Mudaliar. The second complaint was that although Venkatasubba Rao was preferred for the grant of the permit on the ground that he had a superior qualification and it is for that reason that Narayanappa's permit was refused by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal as stated by it in its order in appeal, that aspect was not considered by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal when it granted the permit to Rangappa Reddy and confirmed the grant of permit to Devaraja Mudaliar.

The third complaint was that the Revenue Appellate Tribunal committed the serious mistake of thinking that an application for a review which had been presented by Narayanappa in respect of the dismissal of his appeal by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal had been dismissed, while in fact it had been allowed and the appeal had been posted for a fresh hearing. The last submission was that the Revenue Appellate Tribunal was in error in refusing to hear the appeal so posted for a fresh hearing along with other appeals which it had before it, namely, appeals concerning the grants to Devaraja Mudaliar and Rangappa Reddy.

5. We shall proceed to consider the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned Advocates Messrs. Shanthamallappa and Gopal with respect to the grant of each one of these permits which were granted to the three persons referred to above. The Regional Transport Authority preferred Venkatasubba Rao to Narayanappa on the ground of his superior qualifications. Although the permit granted to Venkatasubba Rao was set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal restored it in the appeal which Venkatasubba Rao preferred, and the ground on which it was restored was that between Venkatasubba Rao and Narayanappa, Venkatasubba Rao who possessed superior qualifications was rightly preferred by the Regional Transport Authority.

If that was the ground on which the Revenue Appellate Tribunal restored the permit granted to Venkatasubba Rao, Narayanappa cannot in this Court ask us to examine the relative merits as between himself and Venkatasubba Rao, and ask us to make a reassessment of the whole matter, since it is inconvertible and it is not disputed before us that possession of the requisite qualifications is a relevant criticism for selection. So the petitioner cannot ask us to investigate the correctness of the preference of Venkatasubba Rao. The complaint made against the grant of the permit to Venkatasubba Rao must be negatived.

6. With respect to the argument that when the permits were granted to Rangappa Reddy and Devaraja Mudaliar, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal forgot what it had said with respect to the superiority of qualifications of Venkatasubba Rao, it would be enough to observe that when the permits were granted to Devaraja Mudaliar and Rangappa Reddy, the question whether Venkatasubba Rao should be preferred to them did not arise for consideration at any stage. The ground on which Devaraja Mudaliar was granted a permit by the State Transport Tribunal was that there was a need for the operation of the stage carriage to operate which he asked for a permit, whereas the Regional Transport Authority had refused the permit on the ground that there was no such need. The institution of any comparison between the qualifications of Venkatasubba Rao was Devaraja Mudaliar was thus quite irrelevant. In that situation and even when the Revenue Appellate Tribunal affirmed the grant made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, that question did not arise since Devaraja Mudaliar's permit was granted on the merits of his own application.

That is also what we should say about grant of permit to Rangappa Reddy. Although Rangappa Reddy's application was dismissed both by the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, his appeal was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal on the ground that since he was an earlier applicant as between himself and Devaraja Mudaliar and Devaraja Mudaliar has been granted a permit, a permit should also be granted to him. So, at this stage, there was no occasion for the assessment of the qualifications possessed by Venkatasubba Rao in the context of those possessed by Rangappa Reddy.

7. But it was said that if Rangappa Reddy was granted a permit on the ground that he was an earlier applicant than Devaraja Mudaliar what was overlooked by the Tribunal was that Narayanappa who is the petitioner before us was the earliest. So it was argued that for the same reason for which Rangappa Reddy was granted a permit, Narayanappa also should have been granted a permit, and that the refusal of that permit in his case contradicted the process of reasoning employed for the grant of the permit to Narayanappa.

8. But this argument overlooks what was stated by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal in the order which it made when disposing of the appeal preferred by Narayanappa against the grant of the permit to Devaraja Mudaliar. In the course of its order the Tribunal pointed out that the objections of Narayanappa to the grant of the permit to Devaraja Mudaliar on the ground that there was no need, was on its face unsustainable since Narayanappa himself was an applicant for the grant of permit in respect of the same route, namely the route between Bangalore and Madanapalli.

But what is of importance to observe is that the Tribunal did consider the question whether for the reason that Devaraja Mudaliar who was the later applicant was granted a permit, Narayanappa should also be granted one, and it recorded a finding that Narayanappa should not be granted a permit between Bangalore and Madanapalli since he had already been granted a permit for the route between Bangalore and Nellore which covered the entire distance between Bangalore and Madanapalli and proceeded beyond. So it is obvious that the Regional Transport Authority thought that it was unreasonable for Narayanappa to ask for another permit with respect to the same route between Bangalore and Madanapalli which was part of the route between Bangalore and Nellore.

9. The resultant position which emerges from various proceedings which the Revenue Appellate Tribunal disposed of on the appeals preferred to it by the one applicant or the other, was that every one of the four applicants got the permit which he sought. Venkatasubba Rao got a permit between Madanapalli and Bangalore, Rangappa Reddy and Devaraja Mudaliar got permits for the route between Bangalore and Madanapalli, and the petitioner Narayanappa also got a permit between Bangalore and Nellore, part of which was the route between Bangalore and Madanapalli.

10. If that is the true position as can be seen from the analysis made so far, the petitioner Narayanappa cannot with reason complain that notwithstanding the fact that he was the earliest applicant, a permit which was refused in his case was granted to the later applicants, namely, Rangappa Reddy and Devaraja Mudaliar. There is no truth in this complaint since he also got a permit, although that permit does not exclusively relate to the route between Bangalore and Madanapalli. He has got a permit for a longer distance which is the distance between Bangalore and Nellore, and that route passes through Madanapalli. It is undisputed that the distance between Bangalore and Madanapalli is only 89 miles, whereas the distance between Madanapalli and Nellore is 160 miles. So the petitioner Narayanappa not only could operate between Bangalore and Madanapalli, the distance between which is only 89 miles, but also could operate over a long distance of 160 miles beyond Madanapalli until he reached Nellore.

11. So while Rangappa Reddy and Devaraja Mudaliar have secured permits only with respect to the short distance of 89 miles between Bangalore and Madanapalli, the permit granted to the petitioner Narayanappa authorises operation over a long distance of 249 miles of which 89 miles form only a portion. There is thus a clear recognition of the right flowing from the fact that Narayanappa was the earliest applicant. So the complaint of exclusion is on its face, unsustainable.

12. It was next urged that the Revenue Appellate Tribunal committed the mistake of thinking that Narayanappa's review petition had been dismissed whereas it had been allowed and the appeal was ready for hearing for the second time. This observation was made by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal when it prepared its order in the appeal preferred by Narayanappa against the grant of permit to Devaraja Mudaliar by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Now when the petitioner's application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority and the application presented by Venkatasubba Rao had been granted, the petitioner preferred two appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal; one related to the refusal of his own application and the other to the grant of the permit to Venkatasubba Rao.

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal with respect to the permit granted to Venkatasubba Rao and dismissed the other. So there were two appeals before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal; one was the appeal preferred by Venkatasubba Rao and the other by the petitioner. In Venkatasubba Rao's appeal, he wanted the permit granted to him restored and in the petitioner's appeal he wanted the permit to be granted to him.

13. On June 4, 1964 Venkatasubba Rao's appeal was allowed and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed. The petitioner Narayanappa sought a review only of the order made in his own appeal but did not in respect of the appeal of Venkatasubba Rao which had been allowed.

That review application was granted on March 13, 1966 and the appeal was heard again, but was again dismissed on July 4, 1966. But the appeal against the grant of the permit made to Devaraja Mudaliar was heard and decided on July 5, 1966, and on that date, the petitioner's appeal presented to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal had already been dismissed for the second time, the previous day. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal, instead of stating that Narayanappa's appeal had been dismissed, stated by mistake that his review application had been dismissed. It is obvious that this is an inadvertent error which to no extent influenced the conclusion reached by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal.

14. The submission that Narayanappa's appeal and Devaraja Mudaliar's appeal should have been clubbed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, is, in our opinion, unsustainable, and is not a matter into which we can make any investigation in a writ petition. The Tribunal had the discretion to order the clubbing and also the discretion to refuse to do so.

15. In our opinion, none of the submissions made in these three writ petitions is substantial, and so we dismiss these writ petitions without making any order as to costs.

16. Before concluding, Mr. Shanthamallappa made a complaint that when Revenue Appellate Tribunal granted a permit to Narayanappa in respect of the route between Bangalore and Nellore, that permit incorporated a condition that the operation on the route inside the Mysore State, that is, on the route between Bangalore and the Mysore State border should not be commenced until a counter signature was obtained with respect to the route in the Andhra State.

It is submitted that Rangappa Reddy has not yet commenced the operation of his state carriages under the permit granted to him and that Devaraja Mudaliar has been able to operate his stage carriages between Bangalore and Madanapalli and was able to get the counter-signature with respect to the route in the Andhra State. Mr. Shanthamallappa makes the complaint that since Narayanappa has not yet been able to get the counter-signature, he is unable to commence the operation even inside the State limits although he was the earliest applicant. So he says that in that situation he has been subject to discrimination notwithstanding his being the earliest applicant.

17. But it is obvious that insistence on the postponement of the operation of Narayanappa's stage carriage inside the State limits until he obtains the counter-signature of Andhra State authorities with respect to the route in the State of Andhra does not have the support of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That section says that when a permit is granted with respect to a route which falls within more than one State, the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one State has validity only in respect of the route inside that State, but has no validity in the other State unless it is counter-signed by the appropriate authority of that State.

The clear meaning of this section is that the permit is a valid permit with respect to the route inside the State the Regional Transport Authority of which granted the permit. Its validity is not kept in abeyance until the other State grants countersignature with respect tot the route in that other State. That being so, the grant of the permit to Narayanappa by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal entitled him to forthwith operate his stage carriages soon after he obtained the permit and got the assignment of timings and the other formalities which has to be complied with inside the State of Mysore had been so complied with.

It is therefore open to Narayanappa to ignore the condition imposed that he should not operate his stage carriage until the countersignature by the Andhra State is obtained. In that view of the matter, the complaint of discrimination is really without foundation, and Messrs. Puttaswamy and Srirangiah appearing for Devaraja Mudaliar and Rangappa Reddy respectively and Chandrakantaraj Urs appearing for the State Road Transport Corporation do not dispute that that is the correct position.

18. Order accordingly.


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