# DELHI ADMINISTRATION v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 70
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-08-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1800 of 1968
- **Bench:** S. MURTAZA FAzAL ALI, P. N. Shinghal, A. D. KosHAL
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/delhi-administration-v-state-of-haryana-ors-7527
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1959, Sections 48(3) (xiv) and 63(2)-Scope af.
The Governments of the States of Punjab and Delhi entered into an agree~
ment about 30 years back providing for the running of public service vehicles on
routes which covered each of the two States so th&t every one of such rorites
C
had one ·terminus in one of the States and the other in the other. In pursuance
of the agreement one of the Governments would issue permit~ under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 and the same would be countersigned by the other SfutC:
before the former plied its buses on the routes covered by such routes. One
such. ·permit related to the Delhi·Kamal route and was countersigned by the
State Transport Authority, Delhi. The routes were extended by the Punjab
State authorities under permits granted by them for intra-state routes connecting
0
different towns in the State of Punjab itself. Thus a permit was issued tn
favour of the Punjab Roadways for the route from Karnal to Chai1digarh so
that the bus operating on the Delhi-Kamal route would carry passengers from
Delhi to Cbandigar-h via Karnal. In 1966, the appe11ant objected
to
the
exploitation by ·the State of Punjab of the inter-State routes in the mariner above-
· stated, that is, by extending them beyond the termini specified in that behalf
under the countersignatures made by the State of Delhi, and apprOO.ched the
E
Inter-State Transport Commission constituted under s. 63-A of M.V. Act with
a request for interference.
The Commission answered it in favour of the
appellant State, and held that "it would JlOt be in order that if orie vehicle
operating on two permits for two routes were to book direct passengers travelling
on both the routes.
Operations which would contravene this advice should be
stopped and the services be so regulated to ensure that the
provisions
of the· Motor Vehicles Act are not violated... Ti.e State of Punjab went up
F
in appeal to the Inter State Transport Appellate Tribunal under rule 24 of the
Inter-State Transport Commission Rules 1960.
The appeal was dismissed and
the respondent State filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was
a1lowed by the Division Bench.
'G
ll
Dismissing the appeal by certificate the Court,
HELD:
(1) According to clause (xiv) of sub-section (3) of s. 48 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1959, the conditions attached to the grant of permit, ui1der
s. 63(2) ibid, may be; (a) that the tickets issued to passengers, shiill bear
specified particul<l!rs; (b) that the· tickets shall show the fares actually charged;
and (c) that records of the tickets issued shall be kept in the manner specified.
None of these conditions embraces a restriction on the permit holder that he
shall not ply his vehicles beyond the specified inter-state route even if that is
done under another permit which is valid according to law and, therefore.
clause (xiv) of s. 48(3) read withs. 63(2) of the Act will be of no avail. [76H,
77A·CJ
'
•
•
'
-1
4
r
DELHI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, J.)
71
(2) The \1.'0rds "Tickets will be issued for the destinations bet\Veen Delhi and
A
Karn.al. Destination boards should be exhibited"
merely lay down positive
instructions. which the permit!holder had to carry out, namely, that he would
not refuse the issue of a ticket between the two termini, i.e., Delhi and Karnal,
.and th&t he would atlo exhibit a board stating that the Vehicle in· question would
cover the route from Delhi to Karnal. Beyond that the words do not go aOO
cannot be construed to mean that the vehicle could not ply beyoii.d ·Karna!
or that a board saying that it was going to Chandigarh via Ka.rnal could not
B
be exhibited, or that tickets could not be issued for any stations except those
lying between Delhi and Karnal. In fact, the authority counter-signing the
permit had no concern at all \Vith any route beyond Karnal. The plying ot
the vehicle from Kamal to Chandigarh would be gove·med not by the permit
covering the Delhi-Karnal route or by the .counter-signature on

## Text

::s
70
DELHI ADMINISTRATION
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
August 9, 1978
[S. MURTAZA FAzAL ALI, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1959, Sections 48(3) (xiv) and 63(2)-Scope af.
The Governments of the States of Punjab and Delhi entered into an agree~
ment about 30 years back providing for the running of public service vehicles on
routes which covered each of the two States so th&t every one of such rorites
C
had one ·terminus in one of the States and the other in the other. In pursuance
of the agreement one of the Governments would issue permit~ under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 and the same would be countersigned by the other SfutC:
before the former plied its buses on the routes covered by such routes. One
such. ·permit related to the Delhi·Kamal route and was countersigned by the
State Transport Authority, Delhi. The routes were extended by the Punjab
State authorities under permits granted by them for intra-state routes connecting
0
different towns in the State of Punjab itself. Thus a permit was issued tn
favour of the Punjab Roadways for the route from Karnal to Chai1digarh so
that the bus operating on the Delhi-Kamal route would carry passengers from
Delhi to Cbandigar-h via Karnal. In 1966, the appe11ant objected
to
the
exploitation by ·the State of Punjab of the inter-State routes in the mariner above-
· stated, that is, by extending them beyond the termini specified in that behalf
under the countersignatures made by the State of Delhi, and apprOO.ched the
E
Inter-State Transport Commission constituted under s. 63-A of M.V. Act with
a request for interference.
The Commission answered it in favour of the
appellant State, and held that "it would JlOt be in order that if orie vehicle
operating on two permits for two routes were to book direct passengers travelling
on both the routes.
Operations which would contravene this advice should be
stopped and the services be so regulated to ensure that the
provisions
of the· Motor Vehicles Act are not violated... Ti.e State of Punjab went up
F
in appeal to the Inter State Transport Appellate Tribunal under rule 24 of the
Inter-State Transport Commission Rules 1960.
The appeal was dismissed and
the respondent State filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was
a1lowed by the Division Bench.
'G
ll
Dismissing the appeal by certificate the Court,
HELD:
(1) According to clause (xiv) of sub-section (3) of s. 48 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1959, the conditions attached to the grant of permit, ui1der
s. 63(2) ibid, may be; (a) that the tickets issued to passengers, shiill bear
specified particul<l!rs; (b) that the· tickets shall show the fares actually charged;
and (c) that records of the tickets issued shall be kept in the manner specified.
None of these conditions embraces a restriction on the permit holder that he
shall not ply his vehicles beyond the specified inter-state route even if that is
done under another permit which is valid according to law and, therefore.
clause (xiv) of s. 48(3) read withs. 63(2) of the Act will be of no avail. [76H,
77A·CJ
'
•
•
'
-1
4
r
DELHI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, J.)
71
(2) The \1.'0rds "Tickets will be issued for the destinations bet\Veen Delhi and
A
Karn.al. Destination boards should be exhibited"
merely lay down positive
instructions. which the permit!holder had to carry out, namely, that he would
not refuse the issue of a ticket between the two termini, i.e., Delhi and Karnal,
.and th&t he would atlo exhibit a board stating that the Vehicle in· question would
cover the route from Delhi to Karnal. Beyond that the words do not go aOO
cannot be construed to mean that the vehicle could not ply beyoii.d ·Karna!
or that a board saying that it was going to Chandigarh via Ka.rnal could not
B
be exhibited, or that tickets could not be issued for any stations except those
lying between Delhi and Karnal. In fact, the authority counter-signing the
permit had no concern at all \Vith any route beyond Karnal. The plying ot
the vehicle from Kamal to Chandigarh would be gove·med not by the permit
covering the Delhi-Karnal route or by the .counter-signature on it but by another
permit issued by the authority competent to deal with the route between Kamal
and Chandigarh.
[77D-H]
C
(3 J 1 he plying of vehicles by the Haryana- Roadways beyond the inter-state
route under valid ·permits issu~d by t·he competent authority does not amount
to an "extension" of the route such as is prohibited by the Act. [77H, 7SA]
The language of sub-section (8) of s. 57 of the Act applies only to a
case where the permit holder applies for variation of the conditions of his
permit by inclusion of a new route or routes or a ne\v area or Oy incr~asing
the number of services above the specified maximum.
In the inst3"ri.t ca~, thts
situation does not arise at all inasmuch as the Haryanao Roadways has not
.applied for the variation of any permit in any way and has, ori the other
hand, taken and exploited quite a-nother permit for iin entirely different route
from another competent authority. [78E-F]
OBSERV AT/ON :
[If any long distance passengers are given preference over those leaving De!hi
for a station lying between the termini specified in any permit bearing the
counter-signature of the Delhi State authorities, a peremptory condition attached
1o the counter-signature would have been violated, and that State would be
61it1ed to ta'ke such action as may be open to it under the·. law].
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1800 of 1968.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20-10-1967 of the Delhi High
Court in Civil Writ No. 1376 of 1967.
S. N. Kacker, Sol. Genl., S. N. Anand and R. N. Sachthey for the
Appellant.
V. M. Tarkunde and Gautam Goswami for Responde_nt No. I.
D
E
F
G
Yogeshwar Prasad and (Mrs.) Rai1i Chhabra for the Jnterveners.
H
E1e-parte against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 S.C.R.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KosHAL, J.-The facts giving rise to this appeal by the Delhi Administration on certificate granted by the High Court of Delhi against its
judgment dated the 20th October 1967 in a petition under articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India (Civil Writ Petition No. 1376/
B
67) are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The Governments
of the States of Punjab and Delhi entered into an agreement about 30
years back providing for the running of public service vehicles on
routes which covered each of the two States so that every one ot such
routes had one terminus in one of the States and the other in the other.
In pursuance of the agreement one of the Governments would issue
C
permits under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) and the same would be counter-signed by the other State
before the former plied its buses on the routes covered by such permits.
One such permit related to the Delhi-Karna! route and was countersigned by the State Transport Authority Delhi in the following terms :
D
"Countersigned for the portion
of the route DelhiE
G
H
Karnal from 31-7-1967 to 30-11-1967
subject
to
the
condition that tickets will be issued for the destinations between Delhi and Karna!. Destination board should be exhibited. Bus will cover the full route and all other conditions
applicable under Motor Vehicle Laws."
Other permits for the Delhi-Karna! route and other inter-State
routes were counter-signed in the same terms.
The routes above-mentioned were extended by the Punjab State.
authorities under permits granted by them for intra-State routes connecting different towns in the State of Punjab itself. Thus a permit was
issned in favour of the Punjab roadways for the route from Kamal
to Chandigarh so that the bus operating on the Delhi-Karna! route
would carry passengers from Delhi to Chandigarh via Kamal.
On the 25th July 1956, officers of the two States came to an agreement whereby the State of Punjab was given the right to extend its ser-·
vices on inter-State routes to any town in the State of Punjab. This
agreement was subject to ratification by the Governments of the two
States, which was, however, never accorded.
In the year 1966, the State of Delhi objected to the exploitation by
the State of Punjab of the inter-State routes in the manner above stated,
that is, by extending them beyond the termini specified in that behalf
under the counter-signatures made by the State of Delhi and approached
the Inter-State Transport Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) constituted under sulrsection (1) of Section 63A of the Act with
"} ..
•
•
*
'
•
'
• ..
DELHI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, ].)
73
a request for interference. After hearing counsel for the two States the
~ Commission passed an order dated 27th August, 1966, in favour ot
the State of Delhi. Tl]e operative part of that order alongwith the
reasons lis!ed by the Commission in support of it is extracted below :
-·
"Section 48(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, prescribes that every stage carriage permit shall be expressed to
be valid only for a specified route or routes of for a specified
area. It appears, therefore, that if a permit is expressed to be
valid only for the one specified inter-State route, the same
transport vehicle covered by the same inter-State permit cannot be allowed to proceed further to another route with liberty
to pick up passengers en route on a second route, which is
an intra-State route, as thi8' would be in violation of the provisions of the Act. There is no objection to the same vehicle
running on another route under a different permit, but it
would be objectionable if passengers who embark on the ro.ute
covered by the inter-State permit are given direct tickets to
any town on the second route for which the vehicle holds on
intra-State permit The issue of such a direct ticket would
amount to extending the span, oI the inter-State route, which
is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. In other
words, there can be no objection to the linking of the two
routes but this linking should not involve boarding of direct
passengers, i.e., those holding one ticket for travel over both
the routes on either of the two routes.
"On a careful consideration of the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the Commission advise under Section
63A(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, thlit it would not be
in order if one vehicle operating on two permits for two routes
were to book direct passengers travelling on both the routes
on direct tickets for places on both the routes. Operations
which would contravene this advice should be stopped and the
services be so regulated to ensure that the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act are not violated."
The State of Punjab went up in appeal to the Inter-State Transport
Appellant Tribnnal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) under rule 24 of
the Inter-State Transport Comnpssion Rules, 1960. That appeal was
f. dismissed on the 4th July 1967 through an order, paragraph 3 to 7 of
which may be re-produced for facility of reference :
"3. The learned counsel for the Delhi Administration
replied that the issue of tickets was a condition of a permit
under Section 48(3) (xiv) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
6-520SCI/78
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
. ,
.;.,. _ _,,_;,.;._
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] l S.C.R.
inter-State permit from Delhi to Karnal was, therefore, subject to the condition that tickets bearing specified particulars shall be issued to passengers and shall show the fares
actually charged.
This must be construed to mean that
the ticket which is issued as a conditi,on
attaching to a
single permit would be restricted to the route or routes covered by that permit.
As the inter-State route alone
is
covered by the permit which is countersigned by the Delhi
Administration, the said permit would require the issue of
a ticket only on the Delhi-Kamal route but not beyond.
"4. We think that the contention of the Delhi Administration is further supported by Section 42(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act under which no owner of a "transport vehicle"
(which includes a stage carriage) shall use the vehkle in
any public place, save in accordance with the conditions
of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or a
State Transport Authority authorising the use of the vehicle
in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being
used.
The vehicle starting from Delhi on
the
DelhiKarnal route would be governed by the conditions of the
inter-State permit countersigned by the Delhi Administration.
The use of the vehicle at Delhi or, for the matter of
that, at any place on the inter-State route, mnst be governed
by the conditions of the inter-State permit alone.
We have
already construed seotion 48(3) (xiv) to mean
that
the
tickets which must be issued as a condition of the permit
must relate to the route or routes or area covered by that
permit.
It would follow therefore tli.at tickets to be issued
from Delhi oonld not be for any place which was beyond
Karna! and, therefore, not covered by the inter-State permit.
"5. Learned Counsel for the Government of Punjab submitted that the Delhi Administration
has
countersigned
only the inter-State route covered by a permit issued by the
Government of Punjab with the knowledge that the same
permit was valid fp'r a further intra-State route also.
This.
however, cannot mean that the Delltl Administration are
estopped from contending that under the conditions of the
inter-State permit, a ticket for a place beyond the InterState ronte cannot be issued.
•
·~·
I
•
H
"6. From the point of view of the convenience of the
passengers, we would have liked the vehicle starting from
Delhi to issue a long distance ticket to a place even beyond
I
~
.
~
DELHI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, !.)
Karna! so that the passengers starting from
Delhi conld
be assured of reaching their destination
beyond KarnaL
Unfortunately, the attainment of this objective has been
fettered by the existing provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act
referred to above .
"7. For the above reasons, therefore, we are of the view
that the advice given by the Inter-State Transport Commission was, on the whole, correct, thongh we have taken the
liberty of adding to the reasons on which the ad vice could
be supported. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed."
75
This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State of Haryana
(which had been carved out of the erstwhile State of Punjab in the
meantime) in the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which we have mentioned above and which has been
accepted by a Divisipn Bench of the High Court of Delhi.
The
High Court took note of the various provisions of the Act and concluded that there was no warrant for the proposition that tickets could
not be issued at Delhi for stations beyond Karna! by the Haryana
Roadways for a bus operating under a Q_erniit in respect of the Delhi-
·~
Karna! route and that the Commission and the Tribunal had both
erred in holding to the contrary.
The High Court observed that
under clause (xiv) of sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act, the
Delhi State could impose conditions subject to which its
countersignature in relation to a permit covering an inter··state route was to
be valid, but added that such conditions could only be those which
were covered by that clause and no others. It further found that
no condition preventing the permit-holder from issuing a direct ticket
from Delhi to Chandigarh via Karna! was ever imposed by the State
· ~ ./Transport Authority, Delhi, and also that such a condition could not
be imposed inasmuch its (a) the same would not be relatable to the
inter-State route and (b) it would not be covered by clause (xiv)
aforesaid.
It turned down a plea that the issuance of tickets from
Delhi to Chandigarh by the Haryana Roadways affected the identity
..
of the Delhi-Karna! route or amounted to its extension.
In the
result, therefore, the High Court is.sued a writ of certiorari quashing
the orders of the Commission and the Tribunal and restrained the
~ Delhi Administration
from interfering with the operation
of the
'
Stage carriages of the State of Haryana on the Delhi-Haryiina interState routes on the plea that. the issue of direct tickets beyond the terminal station.s in Haryana on those routes was pi;ohibitecl either by
the provisions of the Act or by any condition attached by the State
Transport Authority, Delhi.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 1 S.C.R.
A
2. Before us, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant
B
are :
(1) The Regional Transport Authority, Delhi, had the power
under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 63 read with clause (xiv) abovementioned
to impose, while according its counter-signature to a pe.rmit relating
""'·
to an inter-State route, a condition to the effect that tickets shall not
be issued for any station beyond the two specified termini and such
a condition could be spelt out of the counter-signature above extracted
by necessary implication.
t
(2) The counter-signatures covered only inter-State routes having+
C
specified termini and the issuance of tickets by the Haryana Roadways for stations beyond the terminus located in the Haryana State
and specified in a particular permit (which has been countersigned
by the Delhi State authorities) amounted to an extension of the route
which the Act did not permit.
D
We find no force in either of these contentions for the reasons
which follow and whiclJ. are substantially the same as advanced by
the High Court in the detailed judgmeut under appeal.
3. Sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the Act states :
E
"(2) A Regional Transport authority when countersignF
G
H
ing the permit may attach to the permit any qondition which it might have imposed if it has granted
the permit, aiud may likewfae vary any condition
attached to the permit by the Authority by which the
permit was granted."
The conditions which a Regional Transport Authority may attacV
to a permit while granting it are contained in clause (xiv) abovemen~,
tioned which runs thus :
" (xiv) that tickets bearing specified particulars shall be issued to passengers and shall show the fares actually
charged and that records of tickets issued shall be
kept in a specified manner;"
•
According to this clause, the conditions attached to the grant of \
!I permit may be-
(a) that the tickets issued to passengers shall bear specified particulars;
•
..
DELHI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, 1.)
(b) that the tickets shall show the fares actually charged;
and
(c) that records of the tickets issued shall be kept in the
manner specified.
77
None of these conditions embraces a restriction on the permitl1,01der that he shall not ply his vehicle beyond the specified
inter-
• State route even if that is done under another permit which is valid
according to law, and we, therefore, do not 'see how clause (vix)
· ~ as above extracted read with sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 of the Act helps
the case of the appellant.
4. Nor can we agree with the plea that the counter-signature above
extracted cpuld be construed as laying down a condition that the
permit-holder could not ply his vehicle beyond the specified terminus
A
B
c
in the State of Haryana.
Learned counsel for the appellant
has
D
laid emphasis on the words "Tickets will be issued for the destinations
between Delhi and Karna!.
Destination boards should be exhibited," and wants us to interpret them as implying a prohibition on
the use of the qyncerned vehicles beyond Karna!.
We are of the
opinion, however, that no such interpretation can be placed on them.
They merely lay down positive instructions which the permit-holder E
had to carry out, namely, that he would not refuse the issue of a ticket
between the two !ermini, i.e., Delhi and Karna!, and that he would
also exhibit a Q<i'ard stating that the vehicle in question would cover
the route from Delhi to Karna!.
Beyond that the words do not go
and cannot be construed to mean that the vehicle.could notp!y beyond
,
~arnal or that a board saying that it was going to Chandigarh via
_ ,, Karna! oould not be exhibited, or that tickets could not be issued '
for any stations except those lying between Delhi and Karna!.
In
fact, the authority counter-signing the permit had no concern at all
with any r.oute beyond Karna!.
The plying of the vehicle from
Karna! to Chandigarh would be governed not by the permit covering
G
•
the Delhi-Kamal route or by the counter-signature on it but by another
permit issued by the authority competent to deal with the route between Kamal and Chandigarh.
The first contention raised on bei
half of the appellant is, therefore, found to be wthout substance .
t
5. We also find no force · in the plea that the plying of vehicles
H
by the Haryana Roadways beyond the inter-State route under valid
permits issued by the competent authority would amount to
an
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
[1979] 1 S.C.R.
A
"extension" of the route such as is prohibited by the Act. Reliance
in support of the plea was placed on sub-s. ( 8) of S. 57 of the Act
which lays down :
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"(8) An application to vary the conditions of any permit,
other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of
a new route or routes or a new area or, in the case
of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the number
of trips above the specified maximum or by altering the route covered by it or in the case of a contract carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, by
increasing the number of vehicles covered by the
permit, shall be treated as an application
for the
grant of a new p_ermit :
Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat
an application made by the holder of a stage carriage
permit who provides the only service on any route
or in any area to increase the frequency of the service so provided, without any increase in the number
of vehicles."
As pointed out by the High Court, the language of .the sub-section
~
applies only to a case where the permit-holder applies for the variation of the conditions of his permit by inclusion of a new route
or
routes or a new area or by increasing the number of services above
the specified maximum. In the case before us this situation does
not arise at all inasmuch as the Haryana Roadways has not applied
for the variation of any permit in any way and has, on the other hand,
taken and exploited quite another permit for an entirely different
route from another cidmpetent authority.
Apart from sub-sec. (8)
abovementioncd, we have not been referred to any provision of the {'~
Act in support of the plea under consideration which, therefore, fails.
6. Learned Connsel for the appellant drew our attention tid a
eossible unfortunate sitnation which might result from the conclusions which the High Court has reached and, in our opinion, reach-
•
ed rightly.
His apprehension was that in order to make more money
and to avoid inconvenience to itself the Haryana Roadways, while
operating under the permit pertaining to the Delhi-Karna! route, would
(
perhaps not issue any tickets to passengers bound for stations lying
in between Delhi and Kamal so long as it could find customers travelling directly from Delhi to Chandigarh and that in that event the
real purpose of the counter-signatnre would be wholly defeated. We
'
DELllI ADMN. v. HARYANA (Koshal, J.)
79
would certainly not approve of such a situation but then it is nobody's
A
case that the Haryana Roadways has been plying its buses on the
Delhi-Chandigarh route or, for that matter, any other route, in that
fashion.
However, we may make it clear that if any long distance
passengers are given preference over those leaving Delhi for a station
lying between the termini specified in any permit bearing the counter-
,. signature of the Delhi State authorities, a peremptory condition attachB
ed to the counter-signature would have been violated, and that State
would be entitled to take such action as may be open to it under the
• law.
Subject to this observation, the appeal fails and is dismissed,
- {
i
!'
but with no order as to costs.
S.R.
Appeal dismissed.