Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
K. A. NATARAJAN ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M. NAINA MOHD. & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
03/02/1970
BENCH:
HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)
BENCH:
HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)
SHELAT, J.M.
MITTER, G.K.
RAY, A.N.
DUA, I.D.
CITATION:
1971 AIR 431 1970 SCR (3) 495
1970 SCC (1) 473
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-Appeal against
interlocutory order-Practice of Supreme Court.
HEADNOTE:
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 Transport Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by
another applicant. The order of the S.T.A. was quashed by a
Single Judge of 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
grantee from 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 as
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 Court to recognise
the grantee from the R.T.A. when his permit was cancelled by
the S.T.A.,
HELD: This Court would not go into the matter at this
stage because 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-B]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petitions for special leave to
Appeal (Civil) Nos. 2430, 2431, 2436 to 2438, 2442 2443.
2445, 2446, 2472 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).
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
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
M. C. Setalvad, 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 respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. Nos. 2430, 2431,
2436, 2437, 2438, 2442, 2443 and 2472 of 1969).
O. 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. Agrawala, 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 Appellate 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 allowed 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 Appellate Tribunal. They
followed an earlier ruling of the 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 a s.
47(3) determination.
In these petitions for special leave which are ex facie
against the orders made in interlocutory proceedings, the
attempt is to get the permits 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
497
Tribunal. We think that these are matters into which this
Court cannot be invited to go under Art. 136 of the
Constitution, because 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
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 Leave Petitions
dismissed.
SupCI/70-2
498