ANJANEYA MOTOR TRANSPORT Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals from the judgment of Rajagopalan J. dismissing the applications by the two appellants for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Government setting aside the order of the Transport authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The second respondent in both the appeals, _ N.S. Motor Service, Salem, had permits for two puses" on the route Hosur to Salem. This operator applied on 11 3-1953 for the variation of the conditions of the permits for these two buses to enable them to he run beyond Salem upto Perundurai. The appellants before us are also operators running their buses in the route from Salem to Perundurai. This application for variation was dealt with by the Central Road Traffic Board, and under Rule 208 (b) of the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, the procedure applicable to an application for permit is prescribed for applications for variations also. The Board accordingly issued a notification under Section 57 (3) of the Act on 31-10-1953 allowing time till 20-11-1953 for the filing of any representations to be considered by them. No representations in writing satisfying the requirements of Section 57 (3) of the Act were received by the Central Road Traffic Board within the time limited. The appellants however submitted representations out of time. But as under Section 57 (4) these could not be considered by the Central Road Traffic Board the application for variation was treated as unopposed. The Assistant Secretary of the Central Road Traffic Board who had authority delegated to him under the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act considered the second respondent's application and passed an order rejecting the variation applied for. The second respondent thereupon filed an appeal to the Government and the latter by their order dated 18-10-1954 set aside the order of the Central Goad Traffic Board and granted the variation sought. The two appellants thereupon filed petitions under Art, 226 of the Constitution (W. P. Nos. 720 and 721 of 1954) for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government granting the variation to the N.S. Motor Services, Salem.

(3.) The grounds upon which the order of the Government was challenged before the learned Judge were twofold : (1) The Government had no jurisdiction "to entertain the appeal by the second respondent because under the Motor Vehicles Act no appeal lay against an order rejecting an application for variation of the conditions of permit. (2) Even if the Government had jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Central Road Traffic Board, the exercise of that jurisdiction was vitiated by the failure of the Government to give notice to the petitioners (appellants here) before they passed an order which affected them adversely. The learned Judge proceeded upon the footing that no appeal lay to the Government but as it was admitted that the Government had revisional jurisdiction under Section 64 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, there was no insuperable objection in sustaining the validity of the order passed by the Government. The learned Judge also held that as the petitioners before him had not Bled representations in time, they had no right to be heard by the Government and that consequently there was no violation of the principles of natural justice in not issuing notice to them before interfering .with the order of the Central Road Traffic Board. On this reasoning, the learned Judge dismissed the two writ petitions.