HANUMAN TRANSPORT COLTD Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner before us complains against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority on 14-8-1953 granting permit in respect of bus route from Udipi to Dharamstala.

(2.) The Regional Transport Authority had on 7-4-1951 issued a notification under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act calling for application for permit in respect of this route. As a result of that notification there were 7 applications for the said permit, the application of the Petitioner before us being on of them. On 30-4-1951, the Regional Transport Authority issued a notification under Section 57 (3) ' of the Motor Vehicles Act. The matter was posted for hearing on 30-6-1951. On that date the Regional Transport Authority made the following order ;

(3.) The learned Advocate, for the Petitioner urged several grounds in support of this application. In the first place, he contended that the said order of the Regional Transport Authority was not in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, because of the following reasons : (a) that the order does not give any reason while Section 57 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down that when a Regional Transport Authority refuses an application for a permit of any kind, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal. (b) That even if we hold that some reasons have been given for the said order, the said reasons are based on irrelevant considerations. In other words, it was contended that the said reasons are not covered by any of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. Section 47 of the Act states that in deciding whether to grant or refuge a stage carriage permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall have regard to the matters enumerated in the said Section. The learned Advocate contended that in arriving at the said decision the Regional Transport Authority took into consideration matters which were beyond the scope of the said Section, and the order, therefore, should be quashed, (c) That the said reason was based on a factual mistake; the factual mistake being that Respondent 4 before us was the; owner of two buses whereas the Respondent No. 4 was in fact the owner of three buses. The learned Advocate contended that the said order which was based on a factual mistake should be set aside. I shall take up these grounds urged by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner one by one.