# ABDUL GAFOOR v. STATE OF MYSORE

- **Citation:** [1962] 1 S.C.R. 909
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959-12-22
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. W Anchoo, K; C. Das Gupta, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/abdul-gafoor-v-state-of-mysore-2107
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Motor Transport-Scheme published and approved-PermitsApplication for by State Transport Undertaking-Publicatio1t of
application and notice of date for making representation by other
Transport Services, if necessary-Motor V chicles Act, I939 (IV of
I939), ss. 68-C, 68-F (I), Ch. IV-A.
After a scheme was published by the Mysore Transport
Undertaking under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, r939, and
approved by the State Government the State Transport Undertaking made applications for permits under s. 68-F(r) of the
Act to the Regional Transport Authority but before the permits
were granted the secorid respondent made an application for a
Writ of Certiorari prohibiting the Regional Transport Authority
from dealing with the second respondent's application for permit unless and until they were duly publishe<l and notice was
given to him for making representations. The contention on
his behalf was that the publication of the applications with
notice of the date for submitting the representations \.Vas necessary under s. 57(3) Ch. IV of the Act and that he was entitled to
notice as the Regional Transport Authority acted in a quasijudicial capacity while dealing with applications for permits.
Held, that when a scheme prepared and published under
s. 68-C has been approved and an application has been made in
pursuance of the scheme and in the proper manner as specified
in Ch. IV nothing more remains to be decided by the Regional
Raghubrir
Dayal].
Aprit Ia,
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
x96x
Transport Authority and it has no option to refuse the grant of
the permit. The nature of the matter dealt under :s. 68-F(1)
Abdul Gafoor is such as does not attract the provisions of s. 57(3) which lays
v.
down certain duties on the Regional Transport Authority when
State of Mysore it considers an application for a permit. The provisions of
s. 57(3) have nothing to do with the matters dealt with by
s. 68-F(l).
Srinivasa Reddy v. State of Mysore, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 130,
referred to.
When taking action under s. 68-F(1) the Regional Transport Authority does not exercise any quasi-judicial function
and acts wholly in a ministerial capacity . .
ORIGINAL JuRISDICTrnN: Petition No. 109 of 1961.
Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights.
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, B. R. L.
Iyengar and K. P. Bhat, for the petitioner.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Gopalakrishnan and
T. M. Sen, for the respondents.
1961. April 12.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Das Gupta ].
DAS GUPTA, J.-The petitioner, who is the proprietor of the Shaheen Motor Service, used to ply a motor
bus for hire on the route Archalli to Saravanabelgola
in Hassan District in the State of Mysore. A scheme
under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 ha ving been published by the Mysore Transport Undertaking, the petitioner as ohe of the persons affected
thereby filed objections to the scheme before the State
Government under s. 68-D{l) of the Act. The State
Government however after considering the objections
and hearing the petitioner approved the scheme, subject to a slight modification with which we are not concerned. This approval was given on December 22, 1959.
In pursuance of this approved scheme the State Transport Undertaking-the 2nd respondent before usmade applications for permits but before the Regional
Transport Authority could issue such permits the present petition was filed praying, in the first place, for a
writ of certiorari to quash the scheme and some consequential directions, and secondly for a writ of
J
I
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
911
"prohibition" to the Regional Transport Authority,
r96r
Hassan District, who is the third respondent before us
Abd 1 G 1
"to refrain from dealing with the applications for
u
a
00
'
permit made by the 2nd respondent unless and until state 0j' Mysore
they are duly published and notice thereof is given to
the petitioner and he is allowed to make his represenDas Gupt

## Text

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
909
respondent no. l's predecessor-in-interest was not
r96r
avoided by the khot, and therefore validly conveyed
.. , .
..
· I
h"
C
I
"ti
d t th
J ·
Da)l Rnshna)l
tit e to 1m.
onsequent y no t1 e passe .o
e Pam- Desai Tambulkar
tiff under the sale deed in his favour as his transferor
v.
had no title. In either case the plaintiff fails to prove Ganesh Vishnu
his title to the land in suit. The dismissal of his suit
Hulkarni
is therefore correct.
We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
ABDUL GAFOOR
v.
STATE OF MYSORE
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR,
K. N. W ANCHOO, K; C. DAS GUPTA and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Motor Transport-Scheme published and approved-PermitsApplication for by State Transport Undertaking-Publicatio1t of
application and notice of date for making representation by other
Transport Services, if necessary-Motor V chicles Act, I939 (IV of
I939), ss. 68-C, 68-F (I), Ch. IV-A.
After a scheme was published by the Mysore Transport
Undertaking under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, r939, and
approved by the State Government the State Transport Undertaking made applications for permits under s. 68-F(r) of the
Act to the Regional Transport Authority but before the permits
were granted the secorid respondent made an application for a
Writ of Certiorari prohibiting the Regional Transport Authority
from dealing with the second respondent's application for permit unless and until they were duly publishe<l and notice was
given to him for making representations. The contention on
his behalf was that the publication of the applications with
notice of the date for submitting the representations \.Vas necessary under s. 57(3) Ch. IV of the Act and that he was entitled to
notice as the Regional Transport Authority acted in a quasijudicial capacity while dealing with applications for permits.
Held, that when a scheme prepared and published under
s. 68-C has been approved and an application has been made in
pursuance of the scheme and in the proper manner as specified
in Ch. IV nothing more remains to be decided by the Regional
Raghubrir
Dayal].
Aprit Ia,
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
x96x
Transport Authority and it has no option to refuse the grant of
the permit. The nature of the matter dealt under :s. 68-F(1)
Abdul Gafoor is such as does not attract the provisions of s. 57(3) which lays
v.
down certain duties on the Regional Transport Authority when
State of Mysore it considers an application for a permit. The provisions of
s. 57(3) have nothing to do with the matters dealt with by
s. 68-F(l).
Srinivasa Reddy v. State of Mysore, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 130,
referred to.
When taking action under s. 68-F(1) the Regional Transport Authority does not exercise any quasi-judicial function
and acts wholly in a ministerial capacity . .
ORIGINAL JuRISDICTrnN: Petition No. 109 of 1961.
Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights.
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, B. R. L.
Iyengar and K. P. Bhat, for the petitioner.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Gopalakrishnan and
T. M. Sen, for the respondents.
1961. April 12.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Das Gupta ].
DAS GUPTA, J.-The petitioner, who is the proprietor of the Shaheen Motor Service, used to ply a motor
bus for hire on the route Archalli to Saravanabelgola
in Hassan District in the State of Mysore. A scheme
under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 ha ving been published by the Mysore Transport Undertaking, the petitioner as ohe of the persons affected
thereby filed objections to the scheme before the State
Government under s. 68-D{l) of the Act. The State
Government however after considering the objections
and hearing the petitioner approved the scheme, subject to a slight modification with which we are not concerned. This approval was given on December 22, 1959.
In pursuance of this approved scheme the State Transport Undertaking-the 2nd respondent before usmade applications for permits but before the Regional
Transport Authority could issue such permits the present petition was filed praying, in the first place, for a
writ of certiorari to quash the scheme and some consequential directions, and secondly for a writ of
J
I
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
911
"prohibition" to the Regional Transport Authority,
r96r
Hassan District, who is the third respondent before us
Abd 1 G 1
"to refrain from dealing with the applications for
u
a
00
'
permit made by the 2nd respondent unless and until state 0j' Mysore
they are duly published and notice thereof is given to
the petitioner and he is allowed to make his represenDas Gupta J.
tation thereon regarding their compliance or otherwise with the conditions of s. 68-F(l) of Chapter IV-A.
After learned counsel for the petitioner had been
heard, this Court by its order dated March 21, 1961,
granted leave to the petitioner to amend the writ petition so as to confine it to the second prayer only and
directed a rule to issue only in respect of this second
prayer.
The only question with which we are therefore now
concerned is whether a writ should issue prohibiting,
the Regional Transport Authority, Hassan District,
from dealing with the applications for permits made
by the State Transport Undertaking "unless and un ti!
they are duly published and notice thereof is given to
the petitioner and he is allowed to make his representations thereon''.
The petitioner's case as regards this prayer is that
under the law no permit can be granted to the State
Transport Undertaking until the applications for permit have been duly published and notice has been
given to the petitioner of those applications. In support of this proposition learned counsel advanced two
arguments-firstly, that s. 57(3) in Chapter IV of the
Act, requires such prior publication with notice of the
date before which representations in connection with
the application may be submitted and that in consequence of s. 68-B of Chapter IV-A the above provisions of s. 57(3) of Chapter IV have to be followed.
The second argument is that the Regional Transport
Authority acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when dealing with applications for permits made under s. 68-F
and so the petitioner who will be affected by the issue
of the permits is entitled to notice.
Section 68-B on which reliance has been placed
provides inter alia that the provisions of Chapter IV-A
Abdul Cafoor
v.
State of Mysore
Das Gupta ].
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
shall have effect "notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV". It says
nothing positive as regards any of the provisions of
Chapter IV being applicable to matters under Chapter IV-A but provides negatively that if any question
arises as regards any provisions of the Act in Chapter
IV-A and there is difficulty in applying it on the
ground that there is conflict between it and some provisions of Chapter IV, the provisions of Chapter IV-A
will. prevail. Mr. Iyengar has argued that it is implicit in this provision that if there is no such difficulty
all the provisions of Chapter IV will apply to matters
dealt with under Chapter IV-A. This argument, in
our opinion, is fallacious.
All that s. 68-B pre-supposes is that there are some provisions in Chapter IV
which may apply to matters under Chapter IV-A; on
that assumption it proceeds to say that if on a matter
to which provisions of Chapter IV would prima facie
apply there is a provision in Chapter IV-A also which
appears applicable the provision in Chapter IV-A will
prevail to the extent of its inconsistency with the
corresponding provision in Chapter IV. As to what
provisions in Chapter IV will apply or not s. 68-B
says nothing and provides no guidance either expressly or by implication. To find out whether a particular provision in Chapter IV (not being inconsistent
with any provisions in Chap. IV-A) will apply or not
to a matter under Chapter IV-A, we have to examine
the matter in question and then decide whether it is
of such a nature that it attracts that particular provision of Chapter IV.
What then is the matter dealt with under s. 68-F(l)
with which we are concerned in the present case?
Section 68-F(l) comes into operation when a scheme
has already been approved by the State Government
under s. 68-D(2). In order that the approved scheme
may be implemented the State Transport Undertaking
which is to run and operate the Transport Service
under the scheme must have a permit from the Regional Transport Authority. Section 68-F(l) provides
that the State Transport Undertaking will have to
apply for a permit (i) in pursuance of the approved
t
t
.
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
913
scheme and (ii) in the manner specified in Chapter IV.,
r96r
Once that is done, the sub-section proceeds to say "A
Abd ~-;; f
Regional Transport Authority shall issue such permit
" v, a
0°'
to the State Transport Undertaking", and this "not- state of Mysor•
withstanding anything to the contrary contained in
Chapter IV." It appears clear to us that the proviDas Gupta J.
sions of s. 57(3) have nothing to do with these
matters dealt with by s. 68-F(l). Section 57(3) fays
on the Regional Transport Authority certain duties
when it considers an application for a permit. These
conditions are (1) to make the application available
for inspection at the office of the Authority, (2) to
publish the application or the substance thereof in the
prescribed manner together with a notice of the date
before which representations in connection therewith
may be submitted and the date and the time and
place at which the application and any representations, received will be considered. Under s. 68-F(l) as
already mentioned the Regional Transport Authority
has no option to refuse the grant of the permit provided it has been made in pursuance of the approved
scheme and in the manner mentioned in Chap. IV.
The duty of the Regional Transport Authority on
receipt of the application from the State Transport
Undertaking for a permit is therefore to examine the
application for itself to see whether it is in pursuance
of an approved scheme and secondly whether it has
j
been made in the manner laid down in Chapter IV.
·
This is a duty which the Regional Transport Authority has to perform for itself and there is no question
of its asking for assistance from the public or existing
permit holders for Transport Services on the route.
Neither the public in general nor the permit holder
has any part to play in this matter.
The provisions of s. 57(3) for making the application made under Chapter IV, available for inspection,
for publishing the application or a substance thereof
with a notice of the date by which the representations
may be submitted and the date, time and place when
the representations will be considered are required to
enable the Regional Transport Authority to come to a
115
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
'96'
correct conclusion as to whether the application
Abd 1 G f
should be granted or not. An application not made in
u v. a
00
'
the manner laid down in Chapter IV will not be conState of Mysore sidered by the Regional Transport Authority at all.
But the mere fact that it has been made in the proper
Das Gupta J. manner will not entitle the applicant to a permit. It
is the duty of the Regional Transport Authority to
decide on a consideration of all relevant matters whether the application should be allowed. Other operators and even the public have a legal right to make
representations to persuade the Authority not to
grant the permit on the merits of the case. It is for
this reason that there was necessity to make the provisions in sub-section 3 of s. 57 so that the Regional
Transport Authority may receive every assistance in
coming to a proper conclusion. When however a
scheme prepared and published under s. 68-C has
been approved and an application has been made in
pursuance of the scheme and in the proper manner as
specified in Chapter IV nothing more remains to be
decided by the Regional Transport Authority. The
nature of the matter dealt with under s. 68-F(l) is
thus such as does not and cannot attract any of the
provisions of s. 57(3).
It may be" mentioned here that in Srinivasa Reddy
& Ors. v. The State of Mysore & Ors.(') a question was
.,.
raised whether s. 57(3) applied or not to an application made under s. 68-F(l). The Court considered it
unnecessary then to go into the matter as on the facts
of that case it was found that the application had not
been made in the manner provided in Chapter IV and
was actually in breach of s. 57(2) of the Act and so no
permit could be issued on such an application. The
provision in s. 57(2) which was applicable to applicatiol'ls under s. 68-F is that an application for a per-
·mit shall be made not less than si:x;·weeks before the
date on which it is desired that the pe~mit shall take
effect or if t.he Regional Transport Authority appoints
dates for the receipt of such applications,, on such
dates. In that case the Court held that this , p~ovi
sion in s. 57(2) is in reality a manner of making the
(1) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 130,
•
'
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
915
application and consequently it applied to applicaz96 1
tions made under s. 6~-F(l). The provi~ions of s. 57~3) Abdul Gafoov
cannot however be said to have anythmg tb do with
•·
the manner of making the application arid the· nature state of Mys°"
of the matter dealt with under s. 68'-F(l) is such that
provisions of s. 57(3) are not attracted.
Das Gupta J.
The next argument is that the Regional, Transport
Authority functions as a quasi-judicial authority
when dealing with an application made by the State
Transport Undertakihg under s. 68-F(l). It is said
that as under s. 68-F(2) the Regional Transport
Authority may refuse to entertain an application for
renewal of any other permit or cancel an existing permit or modify in certain matters the terms of an existing permit, for the purpose of giving effect to the
approved scheme there is a !is between the existing
permit holders and the State Transport Undertaking
when an application under s. 68-F(l) is dealt with.
It appears to us that when deciding what action to
take under s. 68-F(2) the authority is tied down by
the terms and conditions of the approved scheme and
his duty is merely to do what is necessary to give
effect to the provisions of the scheme. The refusal to
entertain applications for renewal of permits or cancellation of permits or modification of terms of existing
permits really flow from the scheme. The duty is
therefore merely mechanical; and it will be incorrect
to say that there is in these matters any !is between
the existing operators and the ..State Transport Undertaking which is to be decided by the Regional Transport Authority. There is no justification therefore
for saying that when taking action under s. 68-F(2)
the Regional Transport Authority is exercising a
quasi-judicial function. Apart from this it has to be
pointed out that action under s. 68-F(2) is really independent of the issue of the permits under s. 68-F(l).
Once the scheme has been approved, action under
s. 68-F(l) flows from it and at the same time action
under s. 68-F(2) flows from the same scheme. The
argument that the Regional Transport Authority
should be held to be exercising quasi- judicjal function
in dealing with applications for permits under s. 68-F(l)
Abdul Gafoor
v.
Stats of 11.fysors
Das Gupta ].
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
because of the action it may take under s. 68,F(2)
therefore fails.
It was next said that when the Regional Transport
Authority issues the permit it can attach to the permit conditions under s. 48(3) of the Act. Section 48(3)
authorises the Regional Transport Authority if it
decides to grant a stage carriage permit, to attach to
the permit any of the conditions specified in the subsection. It has to be noticed that s. 68-F(l) does not
speak of the "grant" of a permit but provides that the
Regional Transport Authority shall "issue" a permit.
In any case, if the Regional Transport Authority
has to decide what conditions to attach to such a
permit, it is not possible to say that it is then
exercising a quasi-judicial function. For, in deciding
that matter the Regional Transport Authority is to
have regard to the interests of the public but there is
no question because of that, of any lis between the
State Transport Undertaking on the one hand and the
public on the other.
In our opiniol'l, the Regional Transport Authority
acts wholly in a ministerial capacity while dealing
with an application of the State Transport Undertaking under s. 68-F(l). The fact that on other occasions
and in other matters the Regional Transport Authority has quasi-judicial functions to perform cannot
make its function under s. 68-F(l) a quasi-judicial
function.
Our conclusion therefore is that the petitioner's contention that no permit can be granted to the State
Transport Undertaking until the applications for permit have been duly published and no.tices have been
given to the petitioner of these applications is unsound. Consequently, the petitioner ·is not entitled
to any relief.
The petition is dismissed with costs.
Petition dismissed.
•