RAMAN AND RAMAN LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Special Leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras raises the question of interpretation of S. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939), as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act, 1948 (Mad. XX of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act. On February 19, 1955, the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, Madras State, the second respondent herein, called for applications under S. 57(2) of the Act for grant of a stage carriage permit on the Saliamangalam Kodavasal route. The appellant and the fourth respondent K. M. Shanmugam, Proprietor, K. M. S. Transport, Ammapet, Tanjore District, along with others, applied for the grant of the said permit. The Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on April 19, 1955, after hearing the representations of the applicants, granted the permit to the appellant. The fourth respondent and two others, preferred appeals against the said order to the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, the third respondent herein. The Central Road Traffic Board by its order dated June 25, 1955, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the permit to the fourth respondent. The appellant preferred a Revision Petition against that order to the first respondent, the State of Madras, but the first respondent rejected the petition by its order dated October 14, 1955. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ Petition (No. 852 of I955) the High Court of Madras under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders of the Central Road Traffic Board and the State of Madras. Rajagopalan J. of the said High Court by his order dated May 1, 1956, duashed the order of the Government and directed the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which had been constituted in place of the Central Road Traffic Board to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Against the judgment of the learned Judge, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent and the appellate Bench of that High Court, consisting of Rajamannar C. J. and Ramaswami J., set aside the order of Rajagopalan J. and restored the order of the Central Road Traffic Board. The appellant with special leave filed the present appeal against that judgment of the High Court.

(2.) Mr. Pathak, appearing for the appellant, raised before us the following two points:(i) The appeal filed by the fourth respondent against the order of the Regional Transport Authority to the Central Road Traffic Board was barred by limitation and the Board acted illegally in disposing of the appeal without deciding the question of limitation; and (ii) the appellant had the fundamental right to carry on the business of transport subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law as on the date he applied for a permit or at any rate when the Regional Transport Authority issued the permit to him, and that the Central Road Traffic Board committed an error, evident on the face of the record, in disposing of the appeal in accordance with the new restrictions imposed by law made pending the appeal before it. Stated as a legal proposition, the contention is that the appellant had acquired a vested right to carry on the business of transport an that the same could not be defeated by a subsequent law made pending the appeal, which was only prospective in character.

(3.) The first argument need not detain us, for the learned Counsel, in view of the finding of the High Court that as a matter of fact the appeal to the Central Road Traffic Board was not barred, fairly did not press it before us. This leaves us with the second and the only argument in the case. To appreciate the contention it is necessary to set out some more relevant facts:On March 28, 1953 the Government made an order, G. O. Ms. No. 1037 Home, purporting to be under S. 43A of the Act. The material part of that order reads: "(1) That additional buses should not be permitted to ply on existing routes unless there is a clear need for increase in the number of buses plying on a particular route and wasteful competition should be discouraged but healthy competition where there is room should be encouraged and,