# K. A. NATARAJAN ETC v. M. NAINA MOHD. & ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 495
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-02-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Petitions Nos. 15375 of 1969
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, J.M. Shelat, G. K. Mitter, A.'.\. Ray, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-a-natarajan-etc-v-m-naina-mohd-ors-etc-5052
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
G
H
Constitution of India,
1950, Art. 136--Appeal C!gainst interlocutor)
order-Practice of Supreme Court.
The Regional Transport Authority granted to the respondent a permit
to operate a bus on a route.
The grant was set aside by the State Trans~
port Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by another applicant. The order
of the S.T.A. was quashed by a Single Judge <if the High Court in a writ
petition filed by the grantee from the R.T.A. When the matter went before the Letters Patent Bench it was observed that since only the gr;intee
trom the R.T.A. had a valid permit it was not possible to grant any permit
to the appellant before the S.T.A. pending the disposal of the Letters
Patent Appeal a• only one operator could be allowed on the route.
In the petition for special leave to appeal to this Court under Art. 136
against the interlocutory order, on the question of the jurisdiction of the
High C.ourt to recognise the grantee from the R.T.A. when his permit w:.i~
c.ancelled by the S.T.A.,
HELD : This Court \\-'Ould not go into the matter at this stage Decause, the appeal itself was pending before the High Court and all that
the Bench had done was to give effect to the order of the Single Judge
pending disposal of the appeal. [497 A-BJ

## Text

495
A
K. A. NATARAJAN ETC.
v.
M. NAINA MOHD. & ORS. ETC.
February 3, 1970
B
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J.M. SHELAT, G. K. MITTER, A.'.\. RAY
AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Constitution of India,
1950, Art. 136--Appeal C!gainst interlocutor)
order-Practice of Supreme Court.
The Regional Transport Authority granted to the respondent a permit
to operate a bus on a route.
The grant was set aside by the State Trans~
port Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by another applicant. The order
of the S.T.A. was quashed by a Single Judge <if the High Court in a writ
petition filed by the grantee from the R.T.A. When the matter went before the Letters Patent Bench it was observed that since only the gr;intee
trom the R.T.A. had a valid permit it was not possible to grant any permit
to the appellant before the S.T.A. pending the disposal of the Letters
Patent Appeal a• only one operator could be allowed on the route.
In the petition for special leave to appeal to this Court under Art. 136
against the interlocutory order, on the question of the jurisdiction of the
High C.ourt to recognise the grantee from the R.T.A. when his permit w:.i~
c.ancelled by the S.T.A.,
HELD : This Court \\-'Ould not go into the matter at this stage Decause, the appeal itself was pending before the High Court and all that
the Bench had done was to give effect to the order of the Single Judge
pending disposal of the appeal. [497 A-BJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petitions for special leave
to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 2430, 2431, 2436 to 2438, 2442, 2443,
2445, 2446, 24 72 and 2480 of 1969 and 3 of 1970.
From the orders dated December 8, 1969 of the Madras High
Court in Civil Misc. Petitions Nos. 15375 of 1969 etc. in Writ
Appeals Nos. 519 of 1969 etc.
K. K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioner (in
S.L.P. Nos. 2430, 2431 and 2438 of 1969).
S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, M. K. Ramamurthi, G. Ramaswamy, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the petitioners (in
S.L.P. No. 2436 of 1969).
M. K. Ramamurthi, G. Ramaswamy, Shyamala Pappu and
Vineet Kumar, for the petitioner (in S.L.P. No. 2437 of 1969).
A. S. Nambiar, for the petitioner (in S.L.Ps. Nos. 2442, 2443
and 2472 of 1969).
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970) 3 S.C.R.
M. C. Setalv•1d, V. Subramanian and K. Jayaram, for the
petitioner (in .S.L.P. Nos. 2445, 2446 and 2480 of 1969 and 3 of
1970).
Madan Mohan for resporulent No. 1 (in S.L.P. Nos. 2430,
2431, 2436, 2437, 2438, 2442, 2443 and 2472 of 1969).
0. C. Mathur, for respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. No. 2445 of
1969).
R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. No. 2480
Of 1969).
K. Thirumalai, A. T. M. Sampath and E. C. Agtawala, for
respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. No. 3 of 1970).
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, C.J.
These are petitions for special leave against
the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras by
which the High Court has ordered that the permits granted by the
Regional Transport Authority will operate and not those which
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal granted.
The facts may be stated, taking as a sample, Special Leave
Petition No. 2430 of 1969. The original grantee of the permit
by the Regional Transport Authority may be described as 'A'.
The date of the grant was November 20, 1966.
On appeal by the
respondent /who may be described as 'B', the State Transport
A.ppellate'Tribunal cancelled the grant made to A by the Regional
Transport Authority.
This was on July 18, 1967. A writ petition was thereupon filed by A and it was a!Iowed by the _learned
single Judge on November 4, 1969 and the order of the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal was quashed.
When the matter
went before the Letters Patent Bench, it was observed that in view
of the fact that only the grantee of the Regional Transport Authority had a valid permit, it was not possible to grant any permit to
B who was recognised by the State Transport Appe!Iate Tribunal.
They followed an earlier ruling ofthe court and restricted the grant
pending disposal of the Letters Patent appeal to the grantee of the
Regional Transport Authority who alone was permitted to operate
on the route. It appears that only one operator could be allowed
on this route, because of as. 47(3) determination.
In these petiti.ons for special leave which are ex facie against
the orders made in interlocutory proceedings, the attempt is to get
the pemlits restored to B. It-is claimed that this involves a question
of jurisdiction and that question is whether the High Court could
recognise A the grantee of the Regional Transport Authority when
his permit had been cancelled by the State Transport Appellate
A
B
c
·o
E
F
G
H
-
A
B
c
NATARAJAN v. NA!NA MOHD. (Hi<ta.varul/ah, C.J.)
497
Tribunal.
We think that these are matters into which this Court
cannot be invited to go under Art. 136 of the Constitution, pecause
the appeal itself is pending before the High Court and what the
High Court has done is to give effect to the order of the learned
single Judge. In other words, the Letters Patent Bench has not
attempted to pass any special order of its own staying the operation
of the decision of the learned single Judge.
We think it would be
wrong .for us to interfere at this stage.
It may be that the question
may come up in some other form before us when the appeals from
the Letters Patent decision are brought before this Court. If and
when this happens, we may find it convenient to express our opinion on the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to go into
such matters in appeal or in original writ petitions.
Beyond this.
we do not wish to express any opinion, one way or the other, at
this stage.
We accordingly order the dismissal of these special
leave petitions, reserving to the petitioners the right to raise such
questions as may legitimately be raised when they choose to file
appeals against the decision of the Letters Patent Bench.
Stay
granted by this Court is vacated.
V.P.S.
Special Leai•e Perl/ions dismissed.
L8SupCl/7ll-2