1951 (8) TMI 25 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Appeal, Dismisses Preliminary Objection

The court overruled the preliminary objection and held that the appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It found the Government's ... - Issues Involved:1. Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. Preliminary objection regarding the appealability of the writ of certiorari.3. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Article 226 and Article 225 of the Constitution.4. Interpretation and application of Section 57 and Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.5. Consideration of new facts by the Government in revision under Section 64-A.6. Nature of the proceedings (civil or revisional) and applicability of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.Detailed Analysis:1. Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent:This appeal was filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a single judge who refused to set aside the State of Madras's order, which granted a stage coach permit to the second respondent, overturning the Regional Transport Authority's decision.2. Preliminary Objection Regarding the Appealability of the Writ of Certiorari:A preliminary objection was raised by the second respondent's counsel, arguing that no appeal lies against an order of a single judge either issuing or refusing to issue a writ of certiorari under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. This was contested by the appellant's counsel and the Advocate-General. The court decided to address whether this contention could be accepted.3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court under Article 226 and Article 225 of the Constitution:The court discussed the historical jurisdictional powers inherited from the King's Bench of England and how these were altered by Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to issue writs throughout its jurisdiction. The rules framed under Article 225 were also considered, particularly Rule 4, which dictates that petitions involving constitutional interpretation or questioning the validity of any Act should be posted before a Bench of two Judges, while other petitions should be posted before a single Judge.4. Interpretation and Application of Section 57 and Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:The procedure for granting stage carriage permits is detailed in Section 57, which requires the Regional Transport Authority to notify and consider applications and representations. The appellant argued that the Government's consideration of the second respondent's objection was improper as it was not raised before the Regional Transport Authority. The court examined whether the Government, in its revisional capacity under Section 64-A, could take into account new facts not considered by the Regional Transport Authority or the Central Road Traffic Board.5. Consideration of New Facts by the Government in Revision under Section 64-A:The appellant contended that the Government's decision was based on a new fact (the appellant having two permits on the route), which was not raised initially. The court found that the Government could consider such facts under Section 47 of the Act, which allows the Regional Transport Authority to consider various factors, including the public interest and the operation of other transport services by the applicant.6. Nature of the Proceedings (Civil or Revisional) and Applicability of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent:The court determined that the proceedings were of a civil nature and not criminal or miscellaneous. It was concluded that the issuing of writs of certiorari is an exercise of original civil jurisdiction, not revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, Clause 15 of the Letters Patent applies, allowing an appeal from the decision of a single judge to a Bench of the High Court.Conclusion:The preliminary objection was overruled, and the court held that the appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. On the merits, the court found that the Government's consideration of the appellant's two permits was valid under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.