Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman & Raman
Ltd. & Ors [1952] INSC 15 (17 March 1952)
AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, M. PATANJALI
(CJ) MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND MUKHERJEA, B.K.
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
CITATION: 1952 AIR 192 1952 SCR 583
CITATOR INFO :
R 1954 SC 440 (11) R 1955 SC 233 (21,22) F
1957 SC 232 (19) E&D 1957 SC 489 (16) R 1958 SC 398 (19) R 1960 SC 321
(20,23) F 1969 SC 493 (8) F 1970 SC 759 (3)
ACT:
Constitution of India, Art. 226--Order of
Traffic Board granting permit to run motor buses to particular
person--Application to High Court by rival claimant under Art. 226 for quashing
the order and for a direction to grant permits to
him--Maintainability-Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere--Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 --Grant of permit--Whether depends on ownership of bus--Discretion of
Traffic Board.
HEADNOTE:
The writs referred to in Art. 226 are
intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases where the
subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or
in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or
refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent
on the face of the record and such act, omission or error or excess has resulted
in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction may be, it is not so
wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of
appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the, decisions impugned and
decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made.
The Motor Vehicles Act contains a complete
and precise scheme for regulating the issue of permits, providing what matters
are to be taken into consideration as relevant and prescribing appeals and
revisions from subordinate bodies to higher authorities, and the issue or
refusal of permits is solely within the discretion of the transport
authorities; it is not a matter of right.
Where, in a dispute between two rival
claimants for running through a particular route five buses, which each of them
alleged he had purchased from a third person, the Central Road Traffic Board,
Madras, after calling for a report from the Regional Transport Officer and
considering several circumstances that had a material bearing on the case,
restored the permanent permits which had been granted to one of the claimants,
but on an application by the other claimant under Art. 226 of the Constitution
to the High Court of Madras for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the
Regional Transport Authority, the Central Road Traffic Board and the State of
Madras, and for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to transfer, issue or
grant 584 permanent permits to the petitioner, the High Court set aside the
order of the Central Traffic Board, relying mainly on the fact that the
petitioner's title to the five buses had been established and directed the
Regional Traffic Authority to grant to the petitioner permits in respect of the
five buses:
Held, that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the
issue of a permit for a bus was not dependent on the ownership of the bus but
on other considerations also, and as the Central Traffic Board had issued an
order granting permits to one of the claimants after considering all
circumstances the High Court acted erroneously in interfering with the Order of
Traffic Board on an application under Art. 226 and in any event the order of
the High Court issuing a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to grant
permits to the other party was clearly in excess of its powers and
jurisdiction.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a statute which
creates new rights and liabilities and prescribes an elaborate procedure for
their regulation. No one is entitled to a permit as of right even if he
satisfies all the prescribed conditions.
The grant of a permit is entirely within the
discretion of the transport authorities and naturally depends on several
circumstances which have to be taken into account.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 159 of 1951.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated 13th of April, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Rajamannar C.J. and Somasundaram J.) in C.M.P. No. 122/15 of 1950.
M.C. Setalvad (C. R. Pattabhi Raman, with
him) for the appellant.
C.K. Daphtary (M. Natesan, with him) for the
respondent No.1 V.K.T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (R. Ganapathi lyer,
with him) for respondent No. 4.
1952. March 17. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J.---This appeal arises as the result of
special leave to appeal granted by this Court on the 1st of May, 1951, against
an order of the Madras High Court dated 13th April, 1951, quashing certain
proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, and the Central
Traffic Board, Madras, dated 19th January, 1950, and 3rd March, 585 1950,
respectively, and an order of the first respondent (the State of Madras) dated
7th November, 1950, and directing the issue to Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.,
(Petitioners before the High Court) of permits for the five buses in respect of
which a joint application had been made originally by them and one T.D.
Balasubramania Pillai.
The present appellant, G. Veerappa Pillai,
was the fourth respondent in the High Court. The present first respondents
(Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.) were the petitioners before the High Court
Present respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were respectively respondents Nos. 1, 2 and
3 before the High Court.
The dispute is between the appellant and
Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., who were competing bus proprietors in the Tanjore
District; and it is over the issues of five permanent permits for buses Nos.
M.D.O. 81, M.D.O. 230, M.D.O. 6, M.D.O. 7 and M. D.O. 759 on the route between
Kumbakonam and Karaikal. It has been a long-drawn game with many moves,
counter-moves, advances and checkmates, both sides displaying unusual assiduity
and skill in their manoeuvres for position. But it is unnecessary to set out in
great detail all the steps taken, as they have been narrated in the order of
High Court and many of them are of insignificant relevance for disposal of this
appeal. I shall state here only what is material.
The 'C' permits for the five buses stood
originally in the name of Balasubramania Pillai. The buses were agreed to be
purchased from him by Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., and there was a joint
application by the transferor and transferee on 10th March, 1944, for transfer
of the ownership and of the 'C' permits in the name of the purchasers. Two days
later, Veerappa Pillai, proprietor of the Sri Sathi Viias Bus Service, who is
the appellant before us, applied for temporary permits to ply two of his own
vehicles over the same route, stating that the vehicles of the two agencies
which held the permits were mostly out of action. It was a fact that out of the
five buses sold 586 by Balasubramania Pillai, only two were then running; the
other three were under repairs. The permanent permits for the sold buses were
suspended by order of the Secretary dated 28th March, 1944. Temporary permits
for buses M.D.O. 920, 894, 918, M.S.C. 7632 and 7482 had been issued to
Veerappa Pillai during the same month.
Now we come to another chapter in the story.
Balasubramania Pillai resiled from the joint application and repudiated it as
having been got from him by fraud. The Secretary, Road Traffic Board, thereupon
refused to transfer the ownership on the 19th March, 1944, and this order was
confirmed by the Board on 29th May, 1944, Balasubramania Pillai and Veerappa
Pillai made a joint application on 10th April, 1944, for transfer of the buses
and the original permits in favour of Veerappa Pillai who had on the same date
agreed to purchase the vehicles. The Secretary granted this application on the
same date Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., took the matter before the Central Road
Traffic Board and they made an order on 16th August, 1944, upholding the issue
of temporary permits to Veerappa Pillai for his buses M.D.O. 920, 894,918,
M.S.C. 7632 and 7482, but setting aside the transfer of registry of the
original buses and the transfer of the permits relating to the same. On an
application by Veerappa Pillai to review its order dated 16th August, 1944, the
Central Road Traffic Board allowed on 27th November, 1944, only the transfer of
the ownership of the buses but not a transfer of the permits.
Yet another move in the game was this
Veerappa Pillai filed a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam,
on 3rd October, 1944, for recovery of possession of the original five buses
from Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., on the strength of his purchase from
Balasubramania Pillai.
The Subordinate Judge appointed Veerappa
Pillai as Receiver on 17th March, 1945, and the five disputed buses were delivered
to him on 26th April, 1945. Two of the buses M.D.O. 6 and 7 were repaired by
him and put on the route under his temporary permits. The suit was decreed in
587 his favour on 2nd May, 1946. Later, he repaired the other three buses
M.D.O. 759, 230 and 81 and began to run them on the same route under the
temporary permits he held. Veerappa Pillai was discharged from receivership on
18th September, 1946.
On the strength of the Sub-Court decree,
Veerappa Pillai again applied for a permanent transfer of the permits, and on
22nd July, 1946, the Central Road Traffic Board transferred the petition to the
Regional Transport Authority with an intimation that it saw no objection to the
issue of regular permits to Veerappa Pillai for the disputed buses or to their
transfer in his name, provided there were valid permits in existence. This view
appears to have been modified later and on 2nd September, 1946, the Regional
Transport Officer directed the issue of temporary permits to the buses for the
period from 3rd September, 1946, to 31st October, 1946, subject to the
condition that the issue of the permits did not affect the rights of either
party in the matter under dispute. Thereupon, the Government was moved by
Veerappa Pillai and also by Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., but the Government
declined to interfere and the result was an order on 30th June, 1947, by the
Regional Transport Authority to the following effect:" Since the
subject-matter is on appeal before the High Court, the matter will lie over
pending the decision of the High Court. The temporary permits are continued as
is being done." A fresh petition by Veerappa Pillai to the Central Road
Traffic Board, Madras, was unsuccessful, but a further appeal to the Government
of Madras ended in his favour in an order dated 29th March, 1949. The order is
in these terms :-"Shri Sathi Viias Bus Service, Porayar, Tanjore district,
have been permitted by the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, to run their
buses M.D.O. 6, 7, 81, 230 and 750 on the Kumbakonam-Karaikal route on
temporary permits from 1944 pending 588 the High Court's decision on the
question of permanent ownership of the buses. Government consider it
undesirable to keep these buses running on temporary permits for a long and
indefinite period. Further Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service have secured the
decision of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, in their favour about the permanent
ownership of the buses. In the circumstances the Regional Transport Authority,
Tanjore, is directed to grant permanent permits for the buses of Sri Sathi
Vilas Bus Service, Porayar, referred to above in lieu of the existing temporary
permits." On the basis of this Government order, permanent permits were
issued in favour of Veerappa Pillai on 18th April, 1949. Getting to know of
this last order, Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.,approached the Government Madras
with a petition praying for clarification of the order by making it expressly
subject to the decision of the High Court regarding the title to the said five
buses and that in the event of the High Court deciding the appeal in favour of
Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd. "the above said five permanent permits will
be taken away from Veerappa Pillai and given to them." The Minister of
Transport, who dealt with the matter, stated on the petition "that was my
intention also." The High Court reversed the decree of the Sub-Court on
2nd September, 1949, and came to the conclusion that the title of Messrs. Raman
and Raman Ltd., to the five buses prevailed over that of Veerappa Pillai. On
19th September, 1949, they applied to the Government for cancellation of the
five permits issued to Veerappa Pillai and for grant of the same to them. The
Government declined to interfere as the Regional Transport Authority was the
competent authority, vide order dated 16th November, 1949. In their application
to the Regional 'Fransport Authority dated 28th November, 1949, Messrs. Raman
and Raman Ltd., asked for withdrawal of the permits. In the meantime, that is
on 14th October, 1949, Veerappa Pillai applied for renewal of his permanent
permits held for his own 589 buses Nos. M.D.O. 1357, 20, 1366, 1110, 1077,
M.D.O. 1368 and M.S.C.7632, which had been substituted for the disputed buses
as they had become unroadworthy and useless. The application for renewal has
under section 58, sub-clause (2), of the Act to be treated as a fresh
application for new permits. This procedure was followed and on 22nd October,
1949, a notification was issued inviting objections against the renewal and
giving 30th November, 1949, as the date of hearing. No objections were received
and the Secretary renewed the permits for two years from 1st January, 1950.
This order was dated 3rd January, 1950. The
Regional Transport Authority dealing with the application of Messrs. Raman and
Raman Ltd., dated 28th November, 1949, resolved on 19th January, 1950, that the
permanent permits issued to Veerappa Pillai should be cancelled, that the route
should be declared vacant in respect of the five buses and fresh applications
should be invited and dealt with on the merits.
The order further stated that "in the
meanwhile Sri G.
Veerappa Pillai and Raman and Raman will be
given temporary permits for running two and three buses respectively on the
route. The permanent permits will be cancelled with immediate effect. Raman and
Raman should put in the buses as quickly as possible. Till then Sri Veerappa
Pillai will be given temporary permits so as not to dislocate public traffic."
Both the parties were dissatisfied with this order and preferred appeals to the
Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, which dismissed the appeal of Messrs. Raman
and Raman Ltd., and restored the permanent permits of Veerappa Pillai by order
dated the 3rd March, 1950. Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd., moved the Government,
but it declined to interfere by G.O., dated 7th November, 1950.
Thereupon, Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.,
moved the High Court on 4th December, 1950, under article 226 of the
Constitution in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 12215 of 1950 for a writ of
certiorari for quashing the orders and the proceedings of the 590 Regional
Transport Authority, the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, and the State of
Madras dated 19th January, 1950, 3rd March, 1950, and 7th November, 1950,
respectively, and for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other such appropriate
directions to the first respondent to transfer, issue or grant "the five
pucca permits in respect of the route Kumbakonam to Karaikkal to the petitioner
herein" (Messrs.
Raman and Raman Ltd.) It is on this petition
that' the order challenged in this appeal was made by the High Court.
The High Court took the view that throughout
all the stages prior to the High Court's decree, the parties, the transport
authorities vested with the power to issue permits, and the Government also
proceeded upon the footing that the transfer of the permits was dependent on
the title to the buses and that Veerappa Pillai obtained the temporary and
permanent permits only in his capacity as transferee and not in his individual
right. To quote the learned Chief Justice:"the conduct of the parties, the
attitude of the transport authorities including the Government are all
explicable only on the assumption that the rights of parties were consequent on
the ownership of the five vehicles in question. The fourth respondent having
obtained the benefit of temporary and permanent permits as a transferee from
Balasubramania Pillai all this time cannot be heard now to say after the
decision of this Court which has negatived his claim and upheld the claim of
the applicant that the applicant should not enjoy the fruits of his
success." He further points out that the procedure laid down by the Motor
Vehicles Act and the rules for grant of fresh permits was not followed and that
long before the application for renewal was allowed, the Regional Transport
Authority had been informed of the decision of the High Court. The order of the
Central Road Traffic Board was in his -opinion most unsatisfactory, as it was
based on a quibbling distinction between "withdrawal" and
"cancellation" of the permits. In his view, the orders complained
against deprived Messrs.
Raman and Raman Ltd., of the fruits of the
591 decree obtained by them at the hands of the High Court after much
expenditure of time and money.
An examination of the relevant sections of
the Motor Vehicles Act does not support the view that the issue of a permit for
a bus--which falls within the definition of a "stage carriage "--is
necessarily dependent on the ownership of vehicle. All that is required for
obtaining a permit is possession of the bus. As ownership is not a condition
precedent for the grant of permits and as a person can get a permit provided he
is in possession of a vehicle which satisfies the requirements of the statute
or the rules framed there under, we have to hold that the parties and the
authorities were labouring under a misconception if they entertained a contrary
view. But the assumption on which they proceeded may perhaps be explained, if
not justified, on the ground that it was supposed that the question of
ownership of the vehicles had an important or material bearing on the question
as to which of them had a preferential claim for the permits. It may well be it
Was one of the factors to be taken into account and it seems to us that this
was apparently the reason why the question of issue of permanent permits was
postponed from time to time till we come to the order of the Government dated
29th March, on petitions presented by both the contestants.
If matters had stood as they were till the
Government had made this order, something could have been said in favour of
Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., in the event of their ultimate success in the
High Court as regards the title to the five buses. But the said order altered
the situation. In the order, the direction for the grant of permanent permits
is not rested solely on the decision of the Sub-Court in favour of Veerappa
Pillai but another reason was also given, namely, that Government considered it
undesirable to keep the buses running on temporary permits for a long and indefinite
period. In giving this reason, they were stating a policy.
77 592 As observed already, the High Court by
their judgment dated 2nd September, 1949, reversed the decree of the
Subordinate Judge and dismissed Veerappa Pillai's suit for possession of the
buses based on his title. If it were the law that the question of possession
based on ownership was decisive as regards the grant of permits, and if no
other circumstances were available to be taken into account when the question
of the issue of permanent permits again came up for consideration, it would
have been easy to hold that Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., had at least a
preferential claim. But unfortunately for them, both these requisites are not
satisfied. It has been pointed out already that nowhere do we find in the Act
anything to indicate that the issue of permits depends on ownership. Other
circumstances which had a material bearing as to which of them was entitled to
the permits had come into existence since the date of the original joint
application and were taken into account by the transport authorities and by the
Government. The order of 19th January, 1950, of the Regional Transport
Authority sought to render rough and ready justice between the parties by the
adoption of what may be called a middle course.
The terms of the order have already been set
out. Before disposing of the appeals of both the parties, the Central Traffic
Board appears to have called for a report from the Regional Transport Officer.
In this report, attention was drawn to the fact that all the five buses had
been replaced by new vehicles and that the registration certificates had been
cancelled as a result of the replacement. After Balasubramania Pillai, it was
Veerappa Pillai who was running the buses continuously on this route for nearly
5 years and he also obtained the privilege of securing the permanent permits.
The Central Traffic Board's order of 3rd March, 1950, restoring the permanent
permits of Veerappa Pillai was based on the fact that Messrs. Raman and Raman
Ltd. asked for withdrawal of the permits and not their cancellation and that no
opportunity had been given to Veerappa Pillai to show cause why his permits
should not be cancelled; and 593 the procedure prescribed for cancellation was
not followed.
When the Government was moved by Messrs.
Raman and Raman Ltd., under section 64 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, they had
before them a petition for withdrawal of the permanent permits issued to
Veerappa Pillai and for transfer or grant of five 'pucca permits' relating to
the five buses.
The Government granted stay of the appellate
order of the Central Road Traffic Board pending disposal of the revision
petition'and called for a report from the subordinate transport authorities.
Two important facts were brought to the notice of the Government in the report
Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd. did not file any objections to the renewal of the
permits sought by Veerappa Pillai. What is more important, they had no permits
from the French authorities enabling them to run any buses on the portion of
the route which lay in French territory. It was further pointed out that there
was no subsisting joint application to support the request for transfer and
that the original permits in the name of Bala. subramanian had ceased to exist
after 31st December 1944. The Government had also before them two petitions
dated 8th March, 1950, and 25th October, 1950, from Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd.
and two petitions dated 29th March, 1950, and 8th June, 1950, from Veerappa
Pillai. It is on the basis of all these materials that the Government declined
to interfere with the decision of the Central Road Traffic Board.
It is contended for the appellant that in
this state of affairs the High Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution
had no right to interfere with the orders of the transport authorities.
It is unnecessary for the disposal of this
appeal to consider and decide on the exact scope and extent of the jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 226. Whether the writs it can issue must be
analogous to the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari specified therein and the power is subject to all the
limitations, or restrictions 594 imposed on the exercise of this jurisdiction,
or whether the High Court is at liberty to issue any "suitable directions
or orders or writs untramelled ,by any conditions, whenever the interests of
justice so require, is a large and somewhat difficult problem which does not
arise for solution now. Mr. Setalvad appearing for the appellant urged two
narrower grounds as sufficient for his purposes.
Firstly, he urged that however wide the
jurisdiction of the High Court might be under Article 226, it could never exercise
its powers under the article in such a manner as to convert itself into a court
of appeal sitting in judgment over every tribunal or authority in the State
discharging administrative or quasi-judicial functions. Secondly, he maintained
that the Motor Vehicles Act with the rules framed there under dealing with the
grant of permits is a self contained code and that in respect of the rights and
liabilities created by such a statute the manner of enforcement must be sought
within the statute itself. It was further urged by him that in any event, the High
Court could not substitute its own view or discretion for the view taken or
discretion exercised by the specified authorities, even if it was erroneous or
unsound.
Such writs as are referred to in Article 226
are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases
where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without
jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural
justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an
error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or
excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction
may be, it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High
Court to convert itself into a Court of appeal and examine for itself the
correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be
taken or the order to be made Mr. Daphtary, who appeared for the respondent,
said nothing to controvert this position. His argument 595 was that if all
along the authorities and the Government had proceeded upon a particular
footing and dealt with the rights of the parties on that basis, it was not open
to them afterwards to change front and give the go by altogether to the
conception of the rights of parties entertained by them till then. According to
him, there was manifest injustice to his client in allowing them to do so and
this was the reason which impelled the High Court to make the order which is
the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a statute which
creates new rights and liabilities and prescribes an elaborate procedure for
their regulation. No one is entitled to a permit as of right even if he
satisfies all the prescribed conditions.
The grant of a permit is entirely within the
discretion of the transport authorities and naturally depends on several
circumstances which have to be taken into account. The Regional Transport
Authority and the Provincial Transport Authority are entrusted under section 42
with this power.
They may be described as administrative
bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions in the matter of the grant of permits.
Under rule 8 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules the Regional Transport
Authority is called the Road Traffic Board and the Provincial Transport
Authority is called the Central Road Traffic Board. These bodies or authorities
are constituted by the Provincial' Government. The matters which are to be
taken into account in granting or refusing a stage carriage permit are
specified in section 47. By delegation under rule 134 A, the Secretary of the
Road Traffic Board may exercise certain powers as regards the grant or refusal
of stage carriage permits and under rule 136 there is an appeal to the Board
from these orders. Similar powers of delegation are vested in the Secretary to
the Central Board and an appeal lies to the Central Board under rule 148(1).
From an original order of the Road Traffic Board there is an appeal to the
Central Board and from the original orders of the Central Board to the
Government, vide rules 147 and 148 An amendment introduced by the Madras Act XX
of 1948 596 and found as section 64 A in the Act vests a power of revision in
the Provincial Government. Besides this specific provision, there is a general
provision in section 43 A that the Provincial Government may issue such orders
and directions of a general character as it may consider necessary to the
Provincial Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority in respect of
any matter relating to road transport; and such transport authority shall give
effect to all such orders and directions. There is, therefore, a regular
hierarchy of administrative bodies established to deal with the regulation of
transport by means of motor vehicles.
Thus we have before us a complete and precise
scheme for regulating the issue of permits, providing what matters are to be
taken into consideration as relevant, and prescribing appeals and revisions
from subordinate bodies to higher authorities. The remedies for the redress of
grievances or the correction of errors are found in the statute itself and it
is to these remedies that resort must generally be had.
As observed already, the issue or refusal of
permits is solely within the discretion of the transport authorities and it is
not a matter of right.
We are accordingly of opinion that this was
not a case for interference with the discretion that was exercised by the
Transport Authorities paying regard to all the facts and the surrounding
circumstances.
Further, it will be noticed that the High
Court here did not content itself with merely quashing the proceedings, it went
further and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, "to grant
to the petitioner permits in respect of the five buses in respect of which a
joint application was made originally by the petitioner and Balasubramania
Pillai and that in case the above buses have been condemned, the petitioner
shall be at liberty to provide substitutes within such time as may be
prescribed by the authorities." Such a direction was clearly in excess of
its powers and jurisdiction.
597 For the reasons given above, the appeal
is allowed and the order of the High Court set aside. Each party will bear
their own costs of these proceedings throughout.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the appellant: S. Subrahmanyarn.
Agent for respondent No. 1: M.S.K. Sastri.
Agent for respondent No. 4: P.A. Mehta.
Back
