Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
P.SAMIAPPA GOUNDER,THIRUMALAI TRASPORT SERVICEPROP. M/S P.S.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P. SAMIAPPA GOUNDER & ORS.THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,P
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 478 OF 1997
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.23207 of 1996]
O R D E R
Nos.476-477/97
IN CA/@ slp (C) NOS.14713-14/96
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
There was no order passed or action pursued in terms of
Rule 155-A(6) of the Motor Vehicles Rules which envisages
that the authority is required to draw up the proceedings to
consider the merits and demerits of the applications and to
give reasons for grant of the permit. The Division Bench of
the High Court has pointed out in the impugned judgment 28th
June, 1996 that since no reasons were recorded in the
proceedings purported to have been held on 9th May, 1984,
order dated August 1, 1984 passed by the Regional
Development Authority the grant of permkt was not valid and
being a nullity it is non est. The High Court has observed
as under:
"We have pointed out that records
do not contain any proceedings or
any reasons except the order as
notified which has already been
extracted. There is no disagreement
between the parties regarding non
existence of the proceedings
containing reasons for selecting
the first respondent and rejecting
the other applications".
In view of the above finding all the contentions raised
on the legality of the Division Bench judgment passed by the
Division Bench warranting interference.
As regards C.A No 478 of 1997 @ SLP (C) No.23207 of
1996. the High Court has dismissed the writ petition holding
that the entire proceedings is a nullity. Under those
circumstances, no writ can be issued as was sought for.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2