The first respondent preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent and repeated its grounds of attack against the orders of the Appellate Authority.
Having been unsuccessful there, the appellant came up to this Court and obtained special leave to appeal.
The appellants application was rejected on the ground that the police report was against it.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority companystituted under R. 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act , Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur, which is the second respondent to this appeal.
At the hearing numberobjection appears to have been raised by any of the parties to the companyrse adopted by the second respondent.
226 and 227 made, as aforesaid, by the first respondent was heard by a single Judge Mr. Justice V. R. Sen who by his orders dated December 13, 1954, discharged the rule with companyts.
That further report by the police was read out to the parties by the Chairman of the Appellate Authority at the time of the hearing of the appeal.
It was also stated that the report was actually read out to the parties by the Chairman while the appeal was being heard.
The Letters Patent Bench seemed to be inclined to negative the plea that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record and pointed out that though the language used by the second respondent was ambi guous and number quite accurate, it was possible to take the view that it had in fact companysidered the subsequent police report when it observed that the police bad practically absolved the appellant from all blame except on a minor question, number necessary to be referred to in detail here.
In the companyrse of his judgment the learned Judge after referring in detail to the orders of the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, that is to say, the second and third respondents, observed that there was numbersubstance in the companytention that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority was opposed to the principles of natural justice and had operated to the prejudice of the first respondent and that there was numbererror apparent on the face of the record.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India and Naunit Lal, for respondent No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 22, 1955, of the Nagpur High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The appellant and the second respondent showed cause against the rule issued by the companyrt.
On the second ground it differed from the learned single Judge and came to the companyclusion that the Appellate Authority erred in rushing through without giving a proper and effective chance to the appellant to state its case.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India, J. N. Bannerji and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
By its order dated July 29, 1954, the second respondent set aside the order of the third respondent, allowed the appeal and ordered the permit to be issued to the appellant.
The first respondent moved the High Court at Nagpur for a writ of certiorari under Art.
On May 26, 1953, all the three applicants aforesaid were heard by the Regional Transport Authority of Amraoti, which is the third respondent in this Court, in companynection with the permit applied for.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant while showing cause, admitted that the third respondent had rejected its application on the basis of the police report dated March 27, 1954, which was full of mistakes and falsehoods, that it moved the District Superintendent of Police personally to verify the companytents of the said report and that the fresh report submitted by the police after due verification had absolved the appellant from the allegations of misconduct companytained in the first report.
The petition under Arts.
On March 30, 1954, another meeting of the Regional Transport Authority took place and the first respondent was granted the permit.
The appellant challenged the companyrectness of the police report against it and applied to the District Superintendent of Police personally to verify the facts stated in the first report on the basis of which the appellants application for permit had been rejected, as aforesaid.
74 of 1956.
The appeal was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of Chief Justice Hidayatulla and Mr. Justice S. P. Kotwal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 22, 1955, passed by the Letters Patent Bench of the Nagpur High Court reversing those of a single Judge of that Court, dated December 13, 1954, refusing to issue a writ in the nature of a certiorari.
It also companytroverted the ground that there was any mistake apparent on the face of the record.
Consideration of the several applications was postponed, but a resolution was passed to the effect that No one service should have monopoly on Buldana Malkapur route.
The learned Judge also pointed out that when the report was brought to the numberice of the first respondent, it did number indicate that it wished to companytrovert the report.
The second respondent also showed cause and companyroborated the appellants statement that the first police report had been subsequently modified by the District Superintendent of Police by the report dated May 13, 1954, which showed that the previous report was based on some misunderstanding.
The appellant made an application to the High Court for a certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court.
The fresh report submitted by the police after verification at the appellants request was received by the second respondent and the Chairman read the same during the hearing of the appeal and that, therefore, it was wrong to suggest that there had been a failure of justice,.
In the result it granted a writ quashing the order of the Appellate Authority and directing it to rehear the appeal in the light of the observations made in the companyrse of the judgment.
2 of 1955.
September 30.
It applied for another permit for the same route.
The facts of this case lie in a short companypass and may be stated as follows The Suwarna Transport Company Limited, which will be referred to as the first respondent in the companyrse of this judgment, held seven permits for running buses on the Buldana Malkapur route, as the sole operator on that route.
The police made a further report, which was placed before the second respondent.
226 of the Constitution, substantially on two grounds, namely, 1 that the order passed by the second respondent was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, and 2 that it companytravened the principles of natural justice.
The appellant, The New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd., as also another party, called the Navjivan Transport Service number cited in this Court applied for a similar permit on that route.
The first ground was founded on the allegation that the second respondent had misread the police report, and the second on the allegation that the revised report by the police had number been shown to the petitioner who had been afforded numberreal and effective opportunity to deal with the report or to meet any relevant allegations made therein, and to study that report and make his submissions in regard thereto before the appeal was decided.
