Skip to content


Kalyani Transports (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1968)1MLJ188
AppellantKalyani Transports (P.) Ltd.
RespondentThe Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Excerpt:
.....explantion (1); - appointment to state police service - failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against him - effect? - held, the failure of a person to disclose his involvement in a criminal case, at the earliest point of time, when the application form is filled up, is fatal. his subsequent disclosure, whether before acquittal or after acquittal, will not cure the defect. in any case, the subsequent disclosure may not have any effect upon his selection, since his case will then fall under any one of the two explanations under clause (iv) of rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise. --..........applications along with the other applications received in pursuance of the notification of the regional transport authority for the grant of permits on the said routes. the petitioner suo motu applied for permits for the routes abovementioned by his application dated 29th november, 1965. the regional transport authority returned the petitioner's applications with the endorsement that he may apply as and when applications are invited under section 57(2) of the motor vehicles act. this endorsement was dated 16th december, 1965. subsequently the regional transport authority invited applications for grants of permits on the above two routes under section 57(2) of the act and the last date for the receipt of such applications was fixed as 16th june, 1966. the petitioner applied only on.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Kailasam, J.

1. These two writ petitions are filed for the issue of writs of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, to notify the applications of the petitioner dated 29th November, 1965 for the grant of permits on the routes : (1) Tiruppur to Coimbatore via Avanashi and Karumathampatti, and (2) Tiruppur to Erode via Perumanallur, and which were returned by the Authority for of presentation and were re-presented on 19th August, 1966 and to dispose of the said applications along with the other applications received in pursuance of the notification of the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of permits on the said routes. The petitioner suo motu applied for permits for the routes abovementioned by his application dated 29th November, 1965. The Regional Transport Authority returned the petitioner's applications with the endorsement that he may apply as and when applications are invited under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This endorsement was dated 16th December, 1965. Subsequently the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for grants of permits on the above two routes under Section 57(2) of the Act and the last date for the receipt of such applications was fixed as 16th June, 1966. The petitioner applied only on 17th June, 1966 after the expiry of the time fixed. It is unnecessary to go into the question of this delay, in these petitions. The petitioner on 19th August, 1966 filed a petition before the Regional Transport Authority explaining that he had applied on 29th November, 1965 for permits on these two routes and that his applications are pending, as he had represented those applications which were returned to him on 16th December, 1965. He therefore prayed that his application dated 29ih November, 1965 may be notified and considered along with other applications received in pursuance of the notification of the Regional Transport Authority under Section 57(2) of the Act. The Regional Transport Authority declined to entertain the petitioner's application and dismissed the same. The petitioner preferred appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal but that Tribunal dismissed the said appeals on the ground that they were not maintainable since there was no rejection of the applications of the petitioner by the proceedings of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore. Hence these writ petitions.

2. Under Section 57(2) of the Act, a person may apply for a stage carriage permit not less than six weeks before the date on which he desires that the permit shall take effect. The sub-section also provides that the Regional Transport Authority may also appoint a date for receipt of such applications. When a suo motu application, or an application in response to the notification of the Regional Transport Authority, is made, then, the procedure under Section 57(3) of the Act will have to be followed. The Regional Transport Authority is bound to make the applications available for inspection at the office of the Authority and publish the applications or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date op which and the time and place at which the applications and any representations received will be considered. After the receipt of such representations the Authority will have to proceed as provided for in the section. Instead of notifying the two applications made by the petitioner on 29th November, 1965, the Regional Transport Authority returned them informing the petitioner that he may apply when applications are invited under Section 57(2) of the Act. This return is not according to law, for on receipt of the applications the procedure prescribed under Section 57(3) should have been followed. Neither the Act nor the Rules prescribe any time for representation of the applications returned and therefore when the petitioner re-presented his application on 17th June, 1966, they were pending before the Regional Transport Authority. It is true that the petitioner did not apply in response to the notification of the Regional Transport Authority within the time prescribed for receipt of such applications. He is therefore not entitled to press his claim as an applicant who applied in response to the notification of the Regional Transport Authority. But his earlier applications filed suo motu on 29th November, 1965 are not yet disposed of and they are pending before the Regional Transport Authority. If the other applications received in response to the notification by the Regional Transport Authority are disposed of without taking into consideration the two pending applications of the petitioner, the petitioner will be prejudiced. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is only proper that the two applications of the petitioner should also be considered along with the applications received by the Regional Transport Authority in response to his notification. The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, will notify the two applications of the petitioner according to Section 57(3) of the Act and then take up the petitioner's application as well as the other applications received by him in response to his notification and dispose of all the applications together.

3. The writ petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.


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