Skip to content


M.V. Venkatappa Vs. the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 570 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Kant226; AIR1971Mys226; (1971)1MysLJ388
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 47(3)
AppellantM.V. Venkatappa
RespondentThe Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors.
Appellant AdvocateN.S. Narayana Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateC.S. Shanthamallappa and ;M.R. Venkatanarasimhachar, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....but exercising by that authority. but exercising power by a higher authority who has got an appellate jurisdiction, it cannot be said that, it is without jurisdiction. it is only in cases where the power is sought to be exercised by such an authority who is lawyer authority to disciplinary authority, but it cannot be said against the appellate authority, it cannot be said that it is a lack of jurisdiction to exercise such power. .....other operators and who felt aggrieved by the grant preferred revision petitions to the mysore state transport appellate tribunal. they raised several contentions against the legality of the grant the appellate tribunal took up for consideration one of those contentions and having held thereon in favour of the petitioners in those revision petitions and considering that the said finding or opinion was sufficient to dispose of the revision petitions, did not go into the other contentions. on the view it took on the one contention which it considered in detail it came to the conclusion that the grant of the temporary permit was not in accordance with law acid therefore set it aside.3. in this writ petition the only point raised and which may be considered is whether the appellate.....
Judgment:

A. Narayana Pai, C.J.

1. The petitioner who is an operator of a stage carriage was granted a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Mysore, in respect of a route from a place called Bisalawadi to Bangalore City, traversing four districts or divisions, namely. Mysore, Mandya, Tumkur and Bangalore. It appears that the route or part of the route within the Mysore District overlaps portions of two routes within the district of Mysore in respect of both of which the Regional Transport Authority of Mysore had limited the number of services to be operated thereon, by a resolution under Sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act dated 22nd January, 1970. In view of the said resolution the grant of temporary permit to the petitioner was subjected to the condition that in respect of portions of the route overlapping the said two routes covered by the resolution of 22nd January, 1970, the petitioner should neither take nor drop any passengers.

2. Respondents 2 to 5 who were other operators and who felt aggrieved by the grant preferred revision petitions to the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal. They raised several contentions against the legality of the grant The Appellate Tribunal took up for consideration one of those contentions and having held thereon in favour of the petitioners in those revision petitions and considering that the said finding or opinion was sufficient to dispose of the revision petitions, did not go into the other contentions. On the view it took on the one contention which it considered in detail it came to the conclusion that the grant of the temporary permit was not in accordance with law acid therefore set it aside.

3. In this writ petition the only point raised and which may be considered is whether the Appellate Tribunal was not right in the view it has taken.

4. The said contention is that, because there has been a certain ceiling on upper limit for the number of services which could be operated upon two routes in the Mysore district, the Regional Transport Authority of the said district could not have validly granted any permit for operating any additional service on any part of it, whether the permit was temporary or permanent.

5. The question turns entirely upon the interpretation of Sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the determination of the exact scope of its operation. The said sub-section reads as follows:--

'A Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to the matters mentioned in Sub-section (1), limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region.'

6. The language of the section leaves no room for doubt that any action taken or order made under the said sub-section by a Regional Transport Authority could have relation only to the region In respect of which it exercises jurisdiction. Any such order or direction cannot therefore have effect beyond the limits of the said region. That such is the clear meaning of the section is also the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court In the case of Mohamed Ibrahim v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, : [1971]1SCR474 . The matter is discussed in paras 12 and 13 of the report. The relevant passage in para 12 reads as follows:--

'The provisions contained in Subsection (1) generally and Sub-section (2) of Section 47 will apply to the Regional Transport Authority at the time of consideration of the application for inter-State stage carriage permit. Section 47 (3) of the Act will not fa our opinion, apply to Inter-State permits, because that provision relates to a Regional Transport Authority limiting the number of stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region, or in any specified area, or on any specified route within the region. In other words, Section 47 (3) of the Act is confined in its operation in or within the region. The provisions of Section 47 (3) of the Act do not apply to inter-State permits, because an inter-State permit cannot be effective unless it is countersigned by the authority of the other State. The suggestion that in regard to inter-State permits a limit has to be fixed in regard to number of stage carriages for inter-State routes will have the effect of adding words to the provisions in Section 47 (3) of the Act That will not be the proper way of giving effect to Section 47 (3) of the Act. It will be misreading Section 47 (3) of the Act if it will be applied to inter-State permits.'

In the succeeding (13th) paragraph there is this further observation:--

'In view of the fact that Section 47 (3) of the Act is restricted in its field in or within the region, the provisions in terms do not become applicable to inter-regional permits.'

7. Nothing more need be said for holding that the view taken by the Transport Appellate Tribunal in this case is unsustainable.

8. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal impugned is set aside.

9. As the Tribunal has not considered the other contentions of the petitioners before it, we have to make, and we do make, an order that the revision petitions do stand remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of other contentions. As, however, the currency of the permit itself is due to expire from the 31st of this month, it is open to the parties if they so choose, not to go on with the proceedings, and open to the Tribunal to close the revision petitions as having become unnecessary.

10. Copy of this order will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal by tomorrow evening.


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