MKRISHNA MUNISWAMY PILLAI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts necessary to be stated for the purpose of understanding the contentions raised by Mr. V. Krishnamurthy appearing on behalf of the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner was one of the several applicants for a permit in a new route from Hassan to Charmadi. Besides the petitioner there were three other applicants, Respondent No. 3 was one of them. The petitioner not only filed his application for grant of the said permit to him but also filed representations against the other applicants for permits. The other applicants merely filed their applications for permits but did not file any representations either against the application of the Petitioner or against any of the other applications. The matter came up for decision before the State Transport Authority and it was argued before the said authority by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that inasmuch as no representations had been preferred or objections filed against the application of the petitioner by any one of the other applicants, the other applicants will be taken as having no objection to the grant of the permit in his favour. This view was accepted by the State Transport Authority and the said authority granted a permit in favour of the petitioner. Against the said decision of the State Transport Authority an appeal was filed to the Government by Respondent No. 3. The Government on hearing the appeal took the view that the State Transport Authority was not justified in holding that inasmuch as other applicants had not made any representation under the provisions of sub-section (3) of S. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, they were not entitled to be heard by the Authority. The Government held that this can be the position only if the others had withdrawn their applications and so long as their applications were there a duty was cast on the State Transport Authority to consider their applications on merits. The Government further took the view that the appellant before it had a right of appeal under S. 64 of the Act. On this view the Government set aside the order of the State Transport Authority and sent the case back for fresh disposal according to law. The Government directed that the relative claims of all the applicants will have to be considered after giving due notice to all the concerned parties. Against this decision of the Government the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr. V. Krishnamurthi appearing on behalf of the Petitioner raised several contentions in support of his client's case. The first contention urged was that by reason of his failure to file representations in accordance with sub-section (3) of S. 57. Respondent No. 3 could not contest the grant of the permit which was made to the petitioner. In other words, it was contended by Mr. Krishnamurthi, that the only right which Respondent 3 had in the circumstances was the right to prefer an appeal against the refusal of the State Transport Authority to grant a permit to him but he had no right to prefer Petitioner. Mr. Krishnamurthi referred us to the provisions of clauses (a) and (f) of S. 64(1) of the said Act in support of this contention and he also relied on a number of decisions, most of which are decisions of the Rajasthan High Court, for that purpose.

(3.) Clause (a) and (f) of S. 64(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act on which the learned Advocate for the Petitioner depended in support of his present contention read as follows: "64(1) Any person- (a) 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, or.......... (f) being a local authority or police authority or an association which, or a person providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto...... may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard." The argument of Mr. Krishnamurthi was that in order to be entitled to prefer an appeal against the grant of a permit one must fulfil the conditions laid down in Clause (f) of S. 64(1). In other words, he must have opposed the grant of a permit and must be aggrieved by the grant thereof. In this case, it was contended, having regard to the fact that Respondent No. 3 did not file any representation under S. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act the said respondent cannot be said to have opposed the grant of a permit and is therefore not entitled to prefer an appeal under Clause (f) of S. 64(1). It was further urged that the only remedy of Respondent No. 3 was to prefer an appeal against the order of the State Transport Authority refusing to grant a permit in his favour and whatever decision the appellate authority may arrive at on this point, it has no jurisdiction to cancel the permit which was granted in favour of the petitioner, the appeal not falling under Clause (f) of S. 64(1).