Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
KUNDUR RUDRAPPA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT31/07/1975
BENCH:
UNTWALIA, N.L.
BENCH:
UNTWALIA, N.L.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
ALAGIRISWAMI, A.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
CITATION:
1975 AIR 1807 1975 SCC (2) 590
CITATOR INFO :
F 1976 SC 734 (2)
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 64 order granting permit-
Issue of permit in pursuance of the order-If appealable.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was granted a stage carriage permit by
the Regional Transport Authority in May, 1963. Appeals
against the grant to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
and further appeals to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal
were dismissed. Thereafter, in April, 1967, the Secretary of
the Regional Transport Authority after calling upon the
appellant to produce the relevant documents, issued the
permit. Appeals by the respondents of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal against the issue of the permit to the
appellant were allowed on the ground of limitation. The
appeal of the appellant to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal
was dismissed. The appellant’s writ petition to the High
Court was also dismissed.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
^
HELD: There was a clear error of jurisdiction on the
part of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the
Revenue Appellate Tribunal in interfering with the issue of
permit to the appellant. The High Court was, therefore, not
right in dismissing the writ application. [190D-E]
Appeal is a creature of the statute. Section 64 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is the only section creating
rights of appeal against the grant of permit and other
matters. But there is no appeal provided against an order
issuing a permit in pursuance of an order granting the
permit. Issuance of the permit is only a ministerial act
necessarily following the grant of the permit. Hence, the
appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the
further appeal are not competent under the section. [190B-D]
JUDGMENT:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 481 of
1973.
From the Judgment and order dated the 9th February 1973
of the Mysore High Court at Bangalore in W.P. No. 1922 of
1970.
H. B. Datar and K. N. Bhat, for the appellant.
S. S. Javali and B. P. Singh, for the respondents Nos.
1, 3-13
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed
against the judgment of the Mysore High Court (now High
Court of Karnataka) of February 9" 1973, rejecting the
appellant’s writ petition under article 226 of the
Constitution by which the orders of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal and the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal
had been challenged.
189
Briefly the facts are as follows :-
The appellant was granted a stage carriage permit under
section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (briefly the Act)
for the route Devenagere to Shimoga via Honnali by the
Regional Transport Authority, Shimoga, by its order dated
May 3/4, 1963. Some of the respondents preferred appeals
against the said order to the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal and obtained stay of the order The appeals were,
however, dismissed on September 27, 1963. Again, some of the
respondents preferred further appeals to the Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal against the order of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal. This time also the appeals met with the
same fate and were dismissed on February 27, 1967. It
appears, however, that c no order of stay was granted by
the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal.
On April 25, 1967, the Secretary to the Regional
Transport Authority, Shimoga, called upon the appellant to
produce the relevant documents and the certificate of
registration for making necessary entry in the permit. The
appellant produced the same on April 26, 1967, and the
permit was issued on the same day. Against the order of the
issue of the permit, respondents 4 to 13 preferred appeals
to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that
the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Shimoga,
had no jurisdiction to issue a permit under rule 119 of the
Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (briefly the Rules) after
a lapse of such a long time from the date of the grant of
the permit. It was contended that the issue of the permit
was made beyond the prescribed period of limitation under
rule 119. It may be mentioned that at the time of the grant
of the permit the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules, 1945 (old
Rules) were in force and rule 151 of the old Rules was
replaced by rule 119 with effect from July 1, 1963. It was
contended by the appellant before the appellate authorities
that there was no period of limitation under rule 151 of the
old Rules, which was applicable to his case, for the issue
of a permit. The appeals of the respondents were allowed by
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by majority on
January 29, 1969. The District Judge Member, however,
dissented. An appeal filed by the appellant to the Revenue
Appellate Tribunal against the order of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal was dismissed which led to the
unsuccessful writ application in the High Court and hence
this appeal.
The point that arises for consideration is whether any
appeal lay under section 64 of the Act to the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal against the issue of a permit
in pursuance of an earlier resolution of the Regional
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Transport Authority granting the permit. It is only
necessary to read section 64(1) (a) which is material for
the purpose of this appeal:
64(11 (a): "Any person aggrieved by the refusal of
the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a
permit, or by any condition attached to a permit
granted to him may within the prescribed time and in
the prescribed man-
190
ner, appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
constituted under sub-section (2), who shall, after
giving such person and the original authority an
opportunity of being heard, give a decision thereon
which shall be final".
We are not required to consider the other clauses of section
64(1) which are admittedly not relevant. Section 64 has to
be read with rule 178 of the Rules which prescribes the
procedure for appeal to the various authorities
Appeal is a creature of the statute. There is no
dispute that section 64 of the Act is the only section
creating rights of appeal against the grant of permit and
other matters with which we are not concerned here. There is
no appeal provided for under section 64 against an order
issuing a permit in pursuance of the order granting the
permit. Issuance of the permit is only a ministerial act
necessarily following the grant of the permit. The appeals
before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the
further appeal to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal are,
therefore, not competent under section 64 of the Act and
both the Tribunals had no jurisdiction to entertain the
appeals and to interfere with the order of the Regional
Transport Authority granting the permit which had already
been affirmed in appeal by the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal and further in second appeal by the Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal. There was, therefore, a clear error of
jurisdiction on the part of both the Tribunals in
interfering with the grant of the permit to the appellant.
The High Court was, therefore, not right in dismissing the
writ application of the appellant which ought to have been
allowed.
Although arguments were addressed by counsel with
regard to old rule 151 and rule 119 of the Mysore Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1963 we do not feel called upon to pronounce
upon the legal effect of these rules in this appeal.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the
High Court is set aside and necessarily the order of the
State Transport Appellate. Tribunal of January 29, 1969 and
the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal of May 8,
1970, also fall. The order granting the permit to the
appellant stands restored There will be no order as to costs
.
V.P.S. Appeal allowed.
191