N R REVENNA Vs. T V MALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (it ought to be only under Article 227), the petitioner challenges the legality of the order passed by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Appeal No. 367 of 1963 (M. V.) on its file on the ground that the same is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. The tribunal in that case confirmed the order of the S. T. A. T. which in its turn had confirmed the order of the K.T.A., Tumkur.

(2.) SRI Puttaswamy the learned counsel for the petitioner formulated before us three questions of law in support of the pleas put forward in this petition. They are, (i) the decision of the Tribunal that the petitioner had not made any written representation under Section 57(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is patently erroneous, (ii) the first respondent the only contesting respondent, is estopped from contending that the petitioner had not made any written representation as required by Section 57(4) of the Act and (iii) one plain reading of Section 64(1)(f) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal against the order of the R. T. A. even if it is held that he had not filed any written representation as contemplated by Section 57(4) of the Act.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that when the application of the first respondent was taken up for consideration by the R.T.A. on 10/11 -4 -1962, though the written representation made by him was not available in the office of the R. T, A., the first respondent conceded that he had made the representation in question and therefore the R. T. A. proceeded on the basis that he was one of the persons who was entitled to object to the grant. This submission is disputed on behalf of the first respondent In this regard, the R. T. A. had observed as follows : "Sri Mallikarjuniah filed power for Sri Revanna (the petitioner) and contended that though he filed his objections in time his objection has not been considered, he also produced the postal certificate for having sent the objection to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant did not oppose the plea of Revanna. Hence Revanna's counsel Mallikarjuniah was also heard." From these observations, the petitioner seeks to contend that admittedly the petitioner had sent his written representation.Both the S.T.A.T. and the Tribunal came to the conclusion after examining the material on record, that the petitioner has failed to submit any written representations as required by S. 57(4). Prima facie this is a finding of fact which is not open to review by this Court.But this finding is challenged by Sri Puttaswamy on two grounds. He firstly contended that the Tribunals below overlooked the admission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent and his second ground was that in reaching the conclusion the S. T. A. T. and the Tribunal did not bear in mind the presumption available under S. 114 of the Evidence Act. We do not think that from the observations made by the R. T. A. (quoted above), it is possible to come to the conclusion that any positive admission was made by the counsel for the first respondent. It is possible that the learned counsel for the first respondent was merely willing to proceed on the basis, without conceding that the petitioner had filed his written representation. We are unable to read anything more into those observations than that. Therefore it is not possible to come to the conclusion that there was any admission on the part of the first respondent that the petitioner had filed his written representation.Assuming that there was any such admission, even then the same is not conclusive in character. An admission is just one piece of evidence and it is open to the fact finding Tribunals to rely on that piece of evidence or not to rely on the same.. Therefore, if the Tribunals below refused to rely on that admission, assuming there was one, this Court cannot say that they have committed any error of law, much less an error apparent on the face of the records.