Skip to content


K.H. Natarajan Etc. Vs. M. Naina Mohd. and ors., Etc. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 2430, 2431, 2436-2438, 2442, 2443, 2445, 2446, 247
Judge
Reported in(1970)1SCC473; [1970]3SCR495
Acts Constitution of India - Article 136;
AppellantK.H. Natarajan Etc.
RespondentM. Naina Mohd. and ors., Etc.
Appellant Advocate K.K. Venugopal and; R. Gopalakrishnan, Advs. (in S.L.P. Nos. 2430, 2431 and 2438 of 1969;
Respondent Advocate Madan Mohan, Adv. for respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. Nos. 2430, 2431, 2436, 2437, 2438, 2442, 2443 and 2472 of 1969), ;
Prior historyFrom the orders dated December 8, 1969 of the Madras High Court in Civil Misc. Petition Nos. 15375 of 1969 etc., in Writ Appeal No. 519 of 1969 etc.--
Excerpt:
- section 100: [dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi, jj] second appeal jurisdiction is limited to substantial question of law. such question has to be formulated at the time of admission of appeal. decision rendered without formulating such question cannot be sustained. section 100: [dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] second appeal - concurrent finding of fact interference without formulating substantial question of law despite clear enunciation of law by supreme court held, it constitutes main reason for delay in administration of justice. .....that the permits granted by the -regional transport authority will operate and not those which the state transport appellate tribunal in appeal granted.2. the facts may be stated, taking as a sample, special leave petition no. 2430 of 1969. the original grantee of the permit by the regional transport authority may be described as 'a'. the date of the grant was november 20, 1966. on appeal by the respondent who may be described as 'b', the state transport appellate tribunal cancelled the grant made to a by the regional transport authority. this was on july 18, 1967. a writ petition was thereupon filed by a and it was allowed by the learned single judge on november 4, 1969 and the order of the state transport appellate tribunal was quashed. when the matter went before the letters patent.....
Judgment:

Hidayatullah, C.J.

1. These are petitions for special leave against the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras by which the High Court has ordered that the permits granted by the -Regional Transport Authority will operate and not those which the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal granted.

2. The facts may be stated, taking as a sample, Special Leave Petition No. 2430 of 1969. The original grantee of the permit by the Regional Transport Authority may be described as 'A'. The date of the grant was November 20, 1966. On appeal by the respondent who may be described as 'B', the State Transport Appellate Tribunal cancelled the grant made to A by the Regional Transport Authority. This was on July 18, 1967. A writ petition was thereupon filed by A and it was allowed by the learned single Judge on November 4, 1969 and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was quashed. When the matter went before the Letters Patent Bench, it was observed that in view of the fact that only the grantee of the Regional Transport Authority had a valid permit, it was not possible to grant any permit to B who was recognised by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. They followed an earlier ruling of the court and restricted the grant pending disposal of the Letters Patent appeal to the grantee of the Regional Transport Authority who alone was permitted to operate on the route. It appears that only one operator could be allowed on this route, because of a Section 47(3) determination.

3. In these petitions for special leave which are ex facie against the orders made in interlocutory proceedings, the attempt is to get the permits restored to B. it is claimed that this involves a question of jurisdiction and that question is whether the High Court could recognise A the grantee of the Regional Transport Authority when his permit had been cancelled by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. We think that these are matters into which this Court cannot be invited to go under Article 136 of the Constitution, because the appeal itself is pending before the High Court and what the High Court has done is to give effect to the order of the learned single Judge. In other words, the Letters Patent Bench has not attempted to pass any special order of its own staying the operation of the decision of the learned single Judge. We think it would be wrong for us to interfere at this stage. It may be that the question may come up in some other form before us when the appeals from the Letters Patent decision are brought before this Court. If and when this happens, we may find it convenient to express our opinion on the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to go into such matters in appeal or in original writ petitions. Beyond this, we do not wish to express any opinion, one way or the other, at this stage. We accordingly order the dismissal of these special leave petitions, reserving to the petitioners the right to raise such questions as may legitimately be raised when they choose to file appeals against the decision of the Letters Patent Bench. Stay granted by this Court is vacated.


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