GUDLA SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple question that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority can be suspended by the Regional Transport Officer. A Bench of this Court in Amaravathi Motor Transport Co., Amaravathi, by its President Mr. M. Hanumantharao v. The State of Andkra, (1956) An.W.R. 400 : 1956 A.L.T. 285. held that the order of the Secretary suspending the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority is illegal. The learned Government Pleader invited my attention to an unreported decision of the Madras High Court, dated nth August, 1952, in W.P. No. 87 of 1951, taking a contrary view and holding that the suspension by the Regional Transport Officer is valid. The decision of the Madras High Court was not referred to in the judgment of this Court.

(2.) It is surprising that such an important decision was not reported in either the authorised or the unauthorised reports. In M. Subbarayudu and 30 others v. The State, I.L.R. (1955) Andh. 1 : (1955) An.W.R. 150 : 1955 A.L.T. 53 Crl. (F.B.). it has beeti held by a Full Bench of this Court that the decisions of the Madras High Court pronounced prior to 5th July, 1954, are binding upon this Court. In Seshamma v. Narasimharao, (1940) 1 M.L.J. 400 : I.L.R. (1940) Mad. 454 Leach, C.J., observed at page 474, in the following terms :

(3.) If the Bench decision had been referred to the Bench of this Court, it would have either followed it or if it felt that it required reconsideration, it would have referred the matter to a Full Bench, But, unfortunately, it -was not placed before the Bench of this Court which took a different view. As there are two conflicting judgments on the point, it is necessary that the question should be finally decided by a Full Bench. The principle laid down by Leach, C.J., that if this course is not adopted, the Courts subordinate to the High Court would be left without guidance, will apply equally to this case.