Skip to content


Mahendra Singh and ors. Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 4605 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1976All208
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 57(7)
AppellantMahendra Singh and ors.
RespondentThe State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow and ors.
Appellant AdvocateL.P. Naithani, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.K. Dhaon, Standing Counsel
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....section 57(7) of motor vehicles act, 1939 - case remanded by state appellate transport tribunal to regional transport authority - remand of case permissible when further evidence is to be recorded or further enquiry is to be made - case not to be remanded for re-writing judgment defectively drafted - held, tribunal committed manifest error in remanding the case as all material was placed before it. - - the tribunal has set aside the order of the regional transport authority on the ground that the regional transport authority has not complied with the provisions of section 57 (7) of the motor vehicles act inasmuch as it has not given elaborate reasons for declaring the petitioners as the best candidates and it has also not made inter se comparison of the merits and demerits of the 25..........by the regional transport authority, meerut. respondents nos. 3 to 27 went up in appeal before the state transport appellate tribunal. the tribunal has set aside the order of the regional transport authority on the ground that the regional transport authority has not complied with the provisions of section 57 (7) of the motor vehicles act inasmuch as it has not given elaborate reasons for declaring the petitioners as the best candidates and it has also not made inter se comparison of the merits and demerits of the 25 respondents and the petitioners. mr. naithani, the learned counsel for the petitioners objects to this order of the tribunal on the ground that when all the material was before the state transport appellate tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal), the tribunal.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R.L. Gulati, J.

1. The petitioners along with several others applied for the grant of permits to ply their vehicles on certain routes. Permits were granted to the petitioners and other applications were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 went up in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority has not complied with the provisions of Section 57 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act inasmuch as it has not given elaborate reasons for declaring the petitioners as the best candidates and it has also not made inter se comparison of the merits and demerits of the 25 respondents and the petitioners. Mr. Naithani, the learned counsel for the petitioners objects to this order of the Tribunal on the ground that when all the material was before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the Tribunal itself should have taken a decision and should not have remanded the case.

2. Now, ordinarily an appellate court has powers co-extensive with the trial court and a case is remanded when there is some further enquiry to be held or some further evidence is to be brought on the record but it is not remanded for re-writing a judgment if the judgment is found to be defectively drafted. Now in the present case there is no dispute that any further evidence was to be recorded by the Regional Transport Autho-rity. The required particulars are in the applications of the petitioners and the 25 respondents. If the Tribunal had proceeded to decide the case itself it would have avoided multiplicity of proceedings which is bound to arise in case the case is decided by the Regional Transport Authority again as the Regional Transport Authority will have to scrutinise all the applications and there will be appeals again. In support of this contention the learned counsel has relied upon a full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Surendra Mohan Choura-eiya v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 230 (FB)). In paragraph 9 it has been observed:--

'It is important in a matter like the grant of permits that the question should be decided at the earliest possible opportunity so that there may be no inconvenience to the travelling public and no uncertainty to the operators for a long time. It is, therefore, almost a necessity that if the material is on record the Appellate Authority should dispose of finally such a dispute and not remand the case to the Regional Transport Authority. Otherwise after a fresh decision, there would again be an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Authority and ultimately it would be the State Transport Authority that would have to decide a question of fact.' These observations apply with full force on the facts and the circumstances of the instant case. In my opinion, the Tribunal committed a manifest error in remanding the case and not deciding the appeal itself.

3. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 4th July, 1974 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to restore the appeals to their original number and to dispose of the matter itself. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs.


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