# [1952] 1 S.C.R. 583

- **Citation:** [1952] 1 S.C.R. 583
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1951-04-13
- **Bench:** PATANJALI SASTRI c. J, Mehr Chand Mahajan, MuKHERJEA, DAs, Chandrasekhara Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1952-1-s-c-r-583-52
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

583
Constitution of India, Art. 226--0rder of Traffic Board grant·
ing 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-Maintainabilityjurisdiction of High Court to interfere-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
-Grant of permit-Whether depends on ownership of bus-Discretion of Traffic Board.
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 judisdiction , 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
schr"me
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 td 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, is:ue or grant
1952
Mflt'Ch 17.
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
1952
permanent permits to the petitioner', the High Court set aside
.
.
the order of the Central Traffic Board, relying mainly on the
Veerapp• .Pillai fact that the petitioner's title to. the five buses had been cstav.
blished and directed the Regional Traffic Authority to grant to
Raman & Raman the petitioner permits in respect of the five buses :
Ltd. & Others.
Held, that under
the Motor Vehicles
Act, the issue of
--
a permit for a bus was not dependent on the ownership of the
Chantfrasekhara bus but on other considerations also, and as the Central Traffic
Aiyar ].
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 0£ 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
autho~
rities
and
naturally
depends on several
circumstances
which
have .to be taken into account.
CML
APPELLATE
JuRismCTION
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)
fo

## Text

_ ..
( -.
•
(
S.C.E,.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
VEERAPPA PILLAI
"·
RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. and OTHERS.
[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN,
MuKHERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA
AIYAR JJ.]
583
Constitution of India, Art. 226--0rder of Traffic Board grant·
ing 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-Maintainabilityjurisdiction of High Court to interfere-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
-Grant of permit-Whether depends on ownership of bus-Discretion of Traffic Board.
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 judisdiction , 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
schr"me
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 td 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, is:ue or grant
1952
Mflt'Ch 17.
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
1952
permanent permits to the petitioner', the High Court set aside
.
.
the order of the Central Traffic Board, relying mainly on the
Veerapp• .Pillai fact that the petitioner's title to. the five buses had been cstav.
blished and directed the Regional Traffic Authority to grant to
Raman & Raman the petitioner permits in respect of the five buses :
Ltd. & Others.
Held, that under
the Motor Vehicles
Act, the issue of
--
a permit for a bus was not dependent on the ownership of the
Chantfrasekhara bus but on other considerations also, and as the Central Traffic
Aiyar ].
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 0£ 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
autho~
rities
and
naturally
depends on several
circumstances
which
have .to be taken into account.
CML
APPELLATE
JuRismCTION
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 Iyer, with him) for respondent No. 4.
1952. March 17. . The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
CHANDRASEKHARA
ArYAR 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, quash-
. iμg
i::ertain proceedings of the Regional Transport
Authority, Tanjore, and the Central Traffic Board,
Madras, dated 19th January,
1950, and 3rd March,
. -
-
•
y • -.
"-
'
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 pro-
-prietors 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
Vilas
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.
1952
V eerappa Pillai
v.
Raman & Rama"
Ltd. & Others.
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar /.
1952
V eerappa Pillai
v.
Raman & Raman
Ltd. & 0 thers.
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar ].
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
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.0. 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
V eerappa 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
. -
-
...
-
,.
·'
\
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 V eerappa 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
Authoritv
to the following effect :-
·
"Since the subject-matter 1s on appeal before the
High Court, the matter will lie over pending the decision of the High Court.
The temporary permits are
continued as i~ 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
Vilas 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 759 on the Kumbakonam-Karaikal
route
on
temporary
permits
from
1944
pending
1952
Veerappa Pillai
v.
Raman & Ramar>
Ltd. & Othtrs.
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar /.
1952
Veerappa Pillai
v.
Raman & Raman
Ltd. & Others.
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar /.
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
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
of Madras with a petition praying for clarlfication 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
Mess~s. 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
comp~tent authority,
· vide
order dated
16th November, 1949.
In their
application to the Regional Transport 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
. -
-
....
- .
-
S.C.R .
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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. Tlus 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 meanwhi:le
Sri
G. V eerappa 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
Mi:Scellaneous
Petition ·No. 12215 of 1950 for a writ of
certiorari
for quashing the orders and the proceedings of the
1952
V eerappa Pillai
v.
Raman & Raman
Ltd. & Othel's.
Chandrasekhara
11.iyar ;.
1952
V eerappa Pillai
v.
Raman & RamatJ
Ltd. & Others.
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar /.
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
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
~sue 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 perm!ts 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 ti1me 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 rule• 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
. -
-
..
•
-- .
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 thereunder, we have to hold that the partiesi 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 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,
1949, on petitions presented by both the contestants.
If ina.tters, 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 rn 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.
1952
Veerappa Pillai
v.
Raman & Ramafl"
Ltd. & Others.
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar /.
1952
V ecrappa Pillai
v.
·Raman·& Raman
• Ltd. & Others.
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar ].
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{1952]
As observed already, the High Court by their judgment dated 2nd September, 1949, reversed the decree
of the Subordinate Judge and
dismissed
Veerappa
Pillai'& 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
reqms1tes
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 :lnto 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
()f 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 th_eir cancellation and that no
opportunity had been given to Veerappa Pillai to show
cause why his permits should
not be
cancelled~ and
. -
..
f •
-
-
,
~·.
S.C.R.
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
the procedure
followed.
prescribed
for cancellation was
593
not
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 Vei:rappa
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
Piillai. What is more
important, they had no permits from the
Fr.ench
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 Balasubramanian 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 bm.s 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 m 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
1952
V urappa Pillai
v.
Raman & Raman
.Ltd .. & · Others.
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar/.
1952
Veerappa Pillai
v.
Raman & Raman
Ltd. (Jr Others.
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar f.
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
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
requi~e, 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 thereunder dealing with the
grant of permits is a self-contained
code
and that in
re_wect 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 juri~diction 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 vilow to be tafoen or the order to be made.
Mr. Daphtary, who appeared for the respondent, said
nothing
to controvert this position. His
argument
v •
. -
•
y
•
-
• •
--
>
r
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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
whkh 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 Tran~port Authority are
entrusted under section 42 with this power. They may
be described as administrative bodies exercising quasijudicial functions in the matter of the grant or permits.
Under rule 3 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 foto
account in granting or refusing a stage carriage permit
are specified
in section
47.
By
delegation
under
rule 134A, 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 origiinal 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
1952
V eerappa Pillai
v.
Raman & Raman
Ltd. & Others.
Chandrasek_hara
Aiyar /.
5%
SUPREME
COURT REPORTS
[1952]
1952
Veerappa Pillai
and found as section 64A in the Act vests a power of
revision in the Provincial Government.
Besides
this
specific provision, there is a general provision in section 43A 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 resv.
Raman & Raman
Ltd. & Othm.
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar /.
pect 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 i~ 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 Trans port 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 Pi1llai 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 diirection was clearly in excess of its powers
and jurisdiction.
i
f
•
..... -
-
'
> •
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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. Subrahmanyam.
Agent for respondent No. 1 : M. S. K. Sastri.
Agent for respondent No. 4 : P. A. Mehta.
STATE OF MADRAS
v.
V. G. ROW
UNION OF INDIA & STATE I
OF TRA VAN CORE-COCHIN. J lnterveners
[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., MEHER CHAND MAHAJAN,
-
MuKHERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA
AlYAR JJ.)
Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIV of 1908) as amended
·by Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, ss. 15 (2)
(b), 16-Law empowering State to declare associations illegal by notification-No provision for judicial inquiry or for service of notification on association or office-bearers-Validity of law-Unreasonable
restriction on
right to
form
associations-Constitution of India,
art. 19 (1) (c), (4).
Section 15 (2) (b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 1908, .is amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment
(Madras) Act, 1950, included within the definition of an "unlawful association"· an association "which has been
declared
by
the
State by notification in the Official Gazette to be unlawful on the
ground
(to
be
specified
in
the
notification)
that such
association
( i) constitutes
a danger
to
the
public
peace,
or (ii) has
interfered or interferes with the maintenance of
public order or has such interference for its object,
or
(iii)
has
interfered
or
interferes
with
the
administration
of
the
law,
or
has
such
interference for
its
object."
Section
16 of the Act as amended provided that a notification
under
s. 15 (2) (b) shall (i) specify the ground on which it is issued and
such other particulars, if any, as may have ~ bearing on
the
2-7 S. C. India/71
1952
Veci:appa Pillai.
v.
Raman & Raman
Ltd. & Otlzerr.
Chandrasek ham
Aiyar /.
1952
March 31