Skip to content


Tinnevelly Motor Bus Service Co. Ltd. Through Managing Director, R. Velayutham Pillai Vs. Province of Madras Represented by District Collector - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject motor vehicles
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Mad575
AppellantTinnevelly Motor Bus Service Co. Ltd. Through Managing Director, R. Velayutham Pillai
RespondentProvince of Madras Represented by District Collector
Excerpt:
- - in other words, in cases like the present, the collector must indicate that the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the time taken in surrendering the licence was taken into account by him before he refused the' refund......the collector applied his mind to the question whether the licences were surrendered within a reasonable time after the relevant date. the subordinate judge refers to the fact that in the office note, put up for consideration by the collector it was pointed out that there were no explanations for some portion or part of the periods in question. we have no right to look into these office notes and be guided by that is said therein either in favour of the applicant or against him. especially in cases where the collector is constituted a special authority to decide whether refund is to be ordered or not and to that extent the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted, it is very necessary that the order passed by him should on its face show that he has considered the application for.....
Judgment:

Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.

1. While I agree with the view-taken by the lower appellate Court that the civil Court can go only into the question whether the Collector has disposed of the applications for refund of the motor vehicles tax bona fide on the materials placed before him, I am of opinion that in S. A. Nos. 320 to 324 of 1943 the orders of the Collector refusing refund require revision and reconsideration. I say this because it does not appear from the orders themselves whether the Collector applied his mind to the question whether the licences were surrendered within a reasonable time after the relevant date. The Subordinate Judge refers to the fact that in the office note, put up for consideration by the Collector it was pointed out that there were no explanations for some portion or part of the periods in question. We have no right to look into these office notes and be guided by that is said therein either in favour of the applicant or against him. Especially in cases where the Collector is constituted a special authority to decide whether refund is to be ordered or not and to that extent the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted, it is very necessary that the order passed by him should on its face show that he has considered the application for refund from a proper standpoint before passing final orders. In other words, in cases like the present, the Collector must indicate that the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the time taken in surrendering the licence was taken into account by him before he refused the' refund. The orders passed by the Collector out of which S. A. Nos. 320 to 324 have arisen do not show this at all. Only in S. A. No. 325 I find it stated 'Licence not surrendered within reasonable time. Rejected.' So this last second appeal must go. In the other five second appeals whether refund might be allowed or not, which will be dependant on the further question whether in each case the licence was surrendered within a reasonable time will have to be considered afresh by the Collector, whose decision will then become final and not open to challenge in any suit in any civil Court.

2. The decrees of the lower Court are set aside and in their place there will be decrees directing the Collector to take the petitions on file and dispose of them afresh according to law and in the light of the aforesaid observations. Each party will bear his own costs throughout. S.A. No. 325 of 1943 will stand dismissed with costs. (Leave to appeal refused.)


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