STANDARD MOTOR UNION LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the Standard Motor Union Ltd., Ettumanoor, represented by its Managing Director, C. L. Varkey against two respondents, the State of Travancore Cochin and the Swaraj Motors Ltd., Kottayam, respectively asking the court to issue an order in the nature of certiorari or other directions and quash the order passed by the Government in review on 7.4.1953 in L.Dis. 3762/52/PWC. The 2nd respondent applied for a stage carriage permit on 1.1.52. That application was rejected by the Transport Authority before whom it was made on 9.2.52. The applicant aggrieved by the order appealed to the Government on 8.4.52 and the Government by order dated 23.1.1953 dismissed the appeal. An application for review was made by the second respondent which was allowed by the Government by order dated 7.4.1953. The order passed in appeal is marked as Ext. A and that passed in review is marked as Ext. B. The petitioner company who were also operators of Transport buses in the locality and who objected to the issue of permit to the second respondent on the aforesaid application seek to have the order of Government passed on 7.4.1953 on review quashed as one passed without jurisdiction. There are certain other grounds also taken in the petition but the only ground argued at the hearing is the want of jurisdiction in Government to review their order. There appears to have been other proceedings also started by an application made by the petitioner for stage carriage permit against the order of the Transport Authority allowing their application which was objected to by the 2nd respondent and an appeal was presented before Government which was allowed and the matter remanded to the Transport Authority for further consideration and disposal by order dated 20.9.1952 in which liberty is reserved to the second respondent to intervene and seek their reliefs. The 2nd respondent had also applied for a permit in the same route for which the permit is applied for by the petitioner. To the objection that the order of review was without jurisdiction the answer given in the counter affidavit presented on behalf of the first respondent is contained in paragraph 4 to the effect that although there is no provision to accept a review the first respondent has inherent powers to rectify mistakes in review and in the next paragraph it is stated "good grounds were given for review". In the counter affidavit presented by the second respondent the objection to the order passed on review on the ground of want of jurisdiction is answered in paragraph 6 wherein they say:

(2.) Mr. Govindan Nair represents before me that there a likelihood of it being taken that the application of the second respondent dated 1.1.1952 against the dismissal of which the appeal was preferred which was dismissed and which order was sought to be reviewed, was an application presented pursuant to the liberty reserved to the 2nd respondent by the order of remand made by the Government on 20.9.1953. It is clear that it could not be so because the order of remand was dated 20.9.1952 and the proceedings ending in the order of review dated 7.4.1953 was about eight months earlier.