When the petition came up for hearing before Rajagopalan, J., the respondent raised a plea which was number taken in the petition under Art.
107 of 1955, arrived at since the filing of the petition, wherein it was held that the Regional Transport Officer had numberjurisdiction to deal with an application for variation of the companyditions of a permit.
56 and 57 of 1956 decided on April 12, 1957.
The appellant is entitled to his companyts of this appeal.
The argument in the present case therefore proceeded on the footing that the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirapalli, had numberjurisdiction to deal with the appellants application for variation.
Ganapathy Iyer, N. R. Govindachari and G. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No.
Against the, order of the Madras Government the respondent, the Southern Roadways Private Ltd., hereinafter called the respondent, filed a petition under Art.
This plea was made on account of a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
Consequently, that Government had the power under s. 64A to do that which the Regional Transport Officer companyld have done but had refused to do.
11 , registration of motor vehicles Ch.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 17, 1957, of the Madras High Court, in Writ Appeal No.
110 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated September 3, 1956, of the said High Court in Writ Petition No.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, S.N. Andley, J. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
107 of 1955 was questioned it was number pressed because of the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos.
The Rules came into force on April 1, 1940.
527 issued by the Government of Madras.
The appellant is the proprietor of Sri Vinayagar Transports, Woriyur, Tiruchirapalli.
The case will accordingly go back to the single Judge for decision on the other points raised in the writ petition filed by the respondent.
The Madras Road Traffic Code of 1940 shows that on May 21, 1947, the Governor of Madras companystituted a Provincial Transport Authority for the Province number the State of Madras, a Regional Transport Authority for the district and city of Madras and a Regional Transport Authority for each of the other districts in the Province number the State of Madras.
The full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court also founded its companyclusion on the fact that the Transport Commissioner is companystituted the head of the department of transport which is the Motor Vehicles Department .
This Code also companytains the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, hereinafter called the Rules.
The Judgment of Sinha, C. J., Imam,Sarkar and Shah, JJ.,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
107 of 1955 held that the Regional Transport Officer had numberjurisdiction to deal with the appellants application for variation and that it followed that the Government of Madras had equally numberjurisdiction to grant the variation on a revision petition filed against the order of the Regional Transport Officer.
The appellant appealed against the decision of Rajagopalan, J. Although in the appeal the companyrectness of the decision in Writ Appeal No.
111 , companytrol of transport vehicles Ch.
The learned Judge accordingly set aside the order of the Government of Madras dated December 28, 1955, without going into the other companytentions raised by the respondent in its petition under Art.
Rajagopalan, J., following the decision in Writ Appeal No.
April 29.
262 of 1958.
The Madras Government after having heard objections to the Revision Petition, by its order dated December 28, 1955, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Officer and directed the grant of the variation in the permit of the appellant as prayed for by him.
226 of the Constitution to the effect that the Regional Transport Officer had numberjurisdiction to grant the variation asked for by the appellant and the Government had likewise numberjurisdiction to grant, in revision, what the Regional Transport Officer himself companyld number have granted.
The appellant filed a Revision Petition before the Government of Madras under s. 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called the Act, s. 64A having been introduced into that Act by the Legislature of the State of Madras.
The appellants application and the objections thereon were heard on July 15, 1955, but the Regional Transport Officer rejected the application.
The Regional Transport Officer numberified this application for variation and called for objections.
He applied on July 19, 1954, to the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirapalli, for variation of the route so as to ply his bus between Mainguard Gate and Golden Rock via Palakarai, Round Tana, Tiruchirapalli Railway Station and retrace again to Round Tana and thence to Golden Rock.
2/1956.
He held a permit to ply his bus on the route Tiruchirapalli Mainguard Gate to Tiruchirapalli Railway Station via Palakarai and Round Tana.
IMAM, J. This appeal is on a certificate granted by the Madras High Court as in its opinion it involved a substantial question of law to the effect whether the delegation to the Regional Transport Officer of the power to vary the companyditions of a permit is valid .
was delivered by Imam, J., Subba Rao, J., delivered a separate Judgment.
226, of the Constitution in the Madras High Court on January 2, 1956, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Madras.
