Skip to content


Ganga Motor Service Vs. the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2151 of 1969
Judge
Reported in(1971)3SCC861
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 64-A; Constitution Of India - Article 226, 227
AppellantGanga Motor Service
RespondentThe Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority and ors.
DispositionAppeal Allowed
Excerpt:
- [ a.n. grover,; j.c. shah and; k.s. hegde, jj.] -- administrative law — natural justice — duty to give reasons — whether the order in question not a speaking order -- the appellant obtained a permit for plying a stage carriage from the chotanagpur regional transport authority for the ranchi-daltongunj munisemar route. 2. the conclusion of the high court, in our judgment, is plainly unsustainable. the appellant will be entitled to its costs in this court and in the high court from respondent 4......also a displaced operator. in my opinion it appears just and legal to give priority to m/s ganga motor service”. against this order a petition was filed in the high court of patna under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution and the high court set aside the order holding that the order of the minister was not a speaking order.2. the conclusion of the high court, in our judgment, is plainly unsustainable. the minister has set out the contentions raised before him; he has also set out the reasons which persuaded him to hold that the appellant was entitled to the permit in preference to the respondent. we do not see any ground for holding that the order was not a speaking order.3. the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the high court is set aside. the appellant will be.....
Judgment:

J.C. SHAH, J.

1. The appellant obtained a permit for plying a stage carriage from the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority for the Ranchi-Daltongunj Munisemar route. The order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The matter was then carried to the Transport Minister who exercised revisional powers under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by the Bihar State Legislature. The Minister set the nature of the dispute, the arguments which were advanced before him and then proceeded to observe “upon hearing the parties and perusing the papers I do not find any force in the application of Shri Sarjoo Prasad Singh. M/s Ganga Motors has a garage and workshop at Ranchi from where it operates its service on Ranchi-Sambalpur route and has enough knowledge of this area. Besides this it is also a displaced operator. In my opinion it appears just and legal to give priority to M/s Ganga Motor Service”. Against this order a petition was filed in the High Court of Patna under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the High Court set aside the order holding that the order of the Minister was not a speaking order.

2. The conclusion of the High Court, in our judgment, is plainly unsustainable. The Minister has set out the contentions raised before him; he has also set out the reasons which persuaded him to hold that the appellant was entitled to the permit in preference to the respondent. We do not see any ground for holding that the order was not a speaking order.

3. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant will be entitled to its costs in this Court and in the High Court from Respondent 4.


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