T E EBRAHIM SAHEB Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications are connected and relate to the same matter. The petitioner in the two applications is one T. E. Ebrahim Sahib. He is the lessee of a site in Ward No. 6 in Tanjore Town which has been used as a bus stand in accordance with licences granted from time to time by the Tanjore Municipality. The stand is situated near the railway station and it is common ground that from several years past it has been the only bus stand in the town and it has been the place from and at which all bus traffic to and from places such as Kumbakonam, Pattukottai, Tiruvarur etc. was starting and terminating. Some time in 1947, there appears to have been a complaint that the bus stand was narrow and inconvenient and thereupon the Municipality discussed a proposal to construct a new bus stand at another suitable place. The Eegional Transport Authority also appears to have convened meetings to consider the question of shifting the bus stand, but the subject was dropped in May 1948. Subsequently there appear to have been again complaints and at the instance of the Tanjore Municipality, the Government passed G. O. No. 231 on 19-1-1950 directing the Eegional Transport Authority to consider the Municipality's representation regarding the unsuitability of the existing bus stand of the petitioner. The subject was placed before the Eegional Transport Authority at its meeting on 21-2-1950 and it passed on that day a resolution that the existing bus stand would be declared unsuitable from 1-4-1950. This resolution was communicated to the petitioner and he filed 0. M. P. No. 2963 on 24-3-1950 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the papers from the Eegional Transport Authority, Tiruchirapalli, and quash the proceedings of 21-2-1950 above mentioned. He also prayed for an interim order of stay of all proceedings pending disposal of the main petition. On 27-3-1950 this Court issued a rule nisi and notice on the application for stay. This fact was intimated to the respondent authority both by the petitioner and by his advocate, but the respondent met and passed on 31-3-1950 a further resolution which runs thus :

(2.) The petitioner seeksio quash this resolution in c. M. P. No. 3365 of 1950. It was contended for the petitioner that both the resolutions of the respondent dated 21-2-1950 and 31-3-1950 respectively are void and passed without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice, as they were passed without notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of presenting his case.

(3.) Though there was a specific averment in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in c. M. P. No. 2963 that the order of the respondent authority was made without any previous notice or intimation or hearing, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Eegional Transport Officer did not traverse this allegation. In para. 4 there is a reference to proceedings in August 1948, in respect of which prior notice is stated to have been given to the petitioner, but there is no statement that notice of the two meetings at which the impugned resolutions were passed was given to the petitioner and that the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard. Though it may be difficult to define exactly the principles of natural justice it is now firmly established that any order passed against a person that is to say to his detriment, by any quasi judicial body contravenes the canons of natural justice if it was passed without notice to him. The Judicial Committee dealing with an order of removal of a person from the membership of a Devasthanam committee observed thus :