(1.) (For himself and Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.) The two Civil Appeals are by special leave of this Court and the two Writ Petitions have been filed by the respective appellants seeking the same relief as in the appeals, the relief sought being the setting aside of orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Pondicherry as the State Transport appellate authority (under the Motor Vehicles Act). All these four have been heard together because of a common point raised regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the appeals and the petitions.
(2.) It is manifest that the preliminary point about the jurisdiction of this Court should have first to be considered before dealing with the merits of the contentions raised in the appeals and petitions. It might be convenient to state a few facts to appreciate the context in which the questions debated before us arise and the point concerned in the order now passed.
(3.) Sivarama Reddiar the appellant in Civil Appeal 43 of 1961 and the petitioner in Writ Petition 298 of 1960, is a citizen of India and is engaged in the business of motor transport. By a notification dated 27.12.1958 in the official gazette of Pondicherry the State Transport Commission of Pondicherry invited applications for the grant of stage carriage permits to be submitted before 27.02.1959, including the route from Pondicherry to Karaikal, the latter being another former French possession. In response to this notification, Sivarama Reddiar as well as one Gopal Pillai who is the second respondent to the appeal and the second respondent in the Writ Petition were two of the 19 persons who made applications for the grant of this permit to them. Before the State Transport Commission dealt with these applications, the Government of India in the exercise of its powers u/s. 4 of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. 1947 published a notification in the Official Gazette of Pondicherry extending the provisions of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as in force in Delhi to Pondicherry with effect from 19.06.1959. Rules 3(4) and 4 of this order promulgated under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act provided: