Skip to content


B. Satyanarayana Singh Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 842 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1963Mys135
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 46 and 57(3)
AppellantB. Satyanarayana Singh
RespondentThe Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Appellant AdvocateM.S. Narayana Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV.S. Malimath, Adv. for Respondent No. 2
Excerpt:
- standard weights & measures (packaged commodities) act,1976 [c.a. no. 60/1976]. sections 39 & 83(2)(zd) & standard weights and measures (package and commodities) rules, 1977, rule 6(1)(d); [a.s. bopanna, j] whether rule 6(1)(d) is ultra vires of the act? held, with regard to the validity of rule 6(1)(d) of the rules, a perusal of the rule would indicate that the said rule states that the month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or pre-packed should be borne on every package or on a label securely affixed thereto. the said rule has been framed exercising the power available under section 83 of the act. the specifics of the rule making power relating to the matters provided therein are stated at sub-clause (a) to(zc) and the said sub-clauses does not indicate with regard to..........between mylar and kotur in the district of bellary, the state transport authority directed the regional transport authority to invite applications for the grant of a permit. this was done in the year 1955 and thereafter three applicants, the petitioner in this writ petition, one mohamed ibrahim and another sethuramachar, made applications for the grant of a permit. the regional transport authority, bellary, decided to grant the permit to sethuramachar. mohamed ibrahim and the petitioner appealed from that decision to the state transport authority and the state transport authority set aside the decision of the regional transport authority and granted the permit to mohamed ibrahim. the petitioner and sethuramachar both appealed to the board of revenue. those two appeals were allowed.....
Judgment:

A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.

1. In respect of the route between Mylar and Kotur in the District of Bellary, the State Transport Authority directed the Regional Transport Authority to invite applications for the grant of a permit. This was done in the year 1955 and thereafter three applicants, the petitioner in this writ petition, one Mohamed Ibrahim and another Sethuramachar, made applications for the grant of a permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Bellary, decided to grant the permit to Sethuramachar. Mohamed Ibrahim and the petitioner appealed from that decision to the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority set aside the decision of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the permit to Mohamed Ibrahim. The petitioner and Sethuramachar both appealed to the Board of Revenue. Those two appeals were allowed and the Board of Revenue which took the view that none of the three applications presented was in accordance with law, accordingly set aside the order of the Stats Transport Authority granting the permit to Mohamed Ibrahim.

2. Sethuramachar and Mohamed Ibrahim then presented writ petitions in W. P. 5 and W. P. 28 of 1958 to this Court complaining against the order made by the Board of Revenue, but those writ petitions were dismissed. The resultant position, therefore, was that applications for the grant of a permit had to be made once again by those who wished to operate on the route.

3. On June 4, 1959, the Regional Transport Authority published a notification calling for applications fixing June 13, 1959 as the last date on which the application had to be presented. The petitioner presented his application on June 10, 1959 for the grant of the permit, but the Regional Transport Authority appears to have thought that the time fixed for the presentation of the application was too short and therefore published another notification on June 13, 1959 fixing July 11, 1959 as the last date on which the applications had to be presented. In the second notification it was stated by the Regional Transport Authority that the earlier notification stood cancelled. After the second notification was published by the Regional Transport Authority, Sethuramachar and several others presented applications for the grant of the permit. Sethuramachar has intervened in this writ petition and is represented by Mr. Malimath, his learned advocate.

4. After the publication of the second notification by the Regional Transport Authority, the application presented by the petitioner on June 10, 1959 was returned to him along with an endorsement which was sent to the petitioner on September 10, 1959. After the application of the petitioner was returned in that way, the application of the others who presented applications in pursuance of the second notification were published under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the return of his application by the Regional Transport Authority on September 10, 1959, and Mr. Narayana Rao contends that the Regional Transport Authority was statutorily bound to publish his application along with the other applications which the Regional Transport Authority has published.

6. Mr. Malimath appearing on behalf of the intervener Sethuramachar, contends that the Regional Transport Authority was not bound to publish the petitioner's application, since the application presented by the petitioner was made by him in pursuance of the notification of the Regional Transport Authority of June 4, 1959 which was later cancelled by the Regional Transport Authority. According to Mr. Malimath, the petitioner's application presented in response to a cancelled notification was a defective application and dad no existence in the eye of law and was not one presented under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. It seems to us that Mr. Malimath cannot succeed in this contention. It is clear from the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act that a person who wants a permit to be granted to him under its provisions may make an application under Section 46 of the Act for that purpose. Section 57(3) of the Act directs that when an application is so presented, that application shall be published in the manner specified in that sub-section. It is not necessary, in order to enable a person to present an application under Section 46, that there should be a notification by the Regional Transport Authority calling for it. It is open to a person to make an application under Section 46 even though there be no antecedent notification by the Regional Transport Authority calling for such application.

It may be that when an application is so presented, even without an invitation by the Regional Transport Authority, the Regional Transport Authority may also consider the question whether or not it is necessary to grant a permit to any one to operate on the route specified in the application. But the fact that the application was presented without invitation by the Regional Transport Authority cannot absolve the Regional Transport Authority from its statutory duty to publish that application under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. That being the requirement of Section 57(3) of the Act, it is obvious that the Regional Transport Authority did not have the power to return the application presented by the petitioner, even on the ground that the application presented by the petitioner was in response to a notification calling for applications which had since been cancelled by the Regional Transport Authority.

8. Even if the first notification calling for applications was cancelled by the Regional Transport Authority, the application presented by the petitioner which was one validly presented under Section 46, was still one which the Regional Transport Authority was under a duty to publish under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

9. There is one more curious feature in this case. The petitioner presented his application on June 10, 1959, after the Regional Transport Authority called for applications. When the Regional Transport Authority published the second notification, it fixed July 11, 1959 as the last date for the presentation of the application. Then what the Regional Transport Authority did was, not to return the application of the petitioner before July 11, 1959 pointing out to him that he should present another application under the second notification, but to return the application of the petitioner two months after the expiry of the date fixed by it in the second notification for the presentation of the application.

10. This is, therefore, a case in which the return of the application of the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority cannot be defended, since it was one made in contravention of the provisions of Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

11. The communication of the Regional Transport Authority along with which the petitioner's application was returned to the petitioner is quashed and a direction a issued to the Regional Transport Authority to publish the petitioner's application as required by law and then dispose of the applications presented by all the applicants along with the application presented by the petitioner in accordance with law.

12. Since this matter has been pending from the: year 1955, we direct the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of the applications with the utmost expedition as indicated in this order.

No costs.


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