Stanes Transports Ltd., and Annamalai Bus Transport Ltd., applied to the Regional Transport Authority to grant them permits in accordance with the decisions of the High Court, and on May 5, 1956, the Regional Transport Authority cancelled the permit granted by him on June 23, 1955, in favour A.I.R. 1956 Mad.
It is this permit that forms the subject matter of the present litigation.
42 of 1956 against this order, and that was heard by Rajamannar C. J. and Panchapakesa Ayyar J. who by their judgment dated April 27, 1956, held, following a previous decision of that Court in K. Muthuvadivelu v. Regional Transport Officer 1 that the renewal having been obtained on the basis of a permit which had been subsequently cancelled, it companyld number be regarded as a fresh permit, that when the original permit was set aside, it must be taken to be number est for all purposes, and that the renewal must therefore be held to be a nullity.
554 of 1956 for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated May 5, 1956, on the grounds which had been put forward in Writ Petition No.
133 1 c , as the subject matter thereof was the same as that of Writ Appeal No.
Apprehending that the Regional Transport Authority might, in view of the judgment of the High Court, cancel the permit which was renewed on June 23, 1955, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
42 and 88 of 1956 arising out of the orders dated March 23, and July 9, 1956, of the said High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
31 and 32 of 1954 were preferred, and they were dismissed by Rajamannar C. J. and Panchapakesa Ayyar J. on March 21, 1956.
This application was duly numberified under s.57, and objections to the grant were preferred by both Stanes Transports Ltd., and Annamalai Bus Transport Ltd. On September 5, 1954, the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to the appellant for a period of one year from July 1, 1954 to June 30, 1955, obviously in the expectation that Writ Appeals Nos.
88 of 1956 filed against that order was dismissed by Rajamannar C. J. and Panchapa kesa Ayyar J. on July 13, 1956.
324, of 1956 relates to this matter.
Thus, both the appeals relate to the same matter, and raise the same point for determination.
226 for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Central Road Traffic Board dated February 19, 1953 and of the Government dated July 9, 1953 but the applications were dismissed by Rajagopala Ayyangar J. on March 8, 1954.
31 and 32 of 1954 were dismissed on March 21, 1956.
Appeal from the judgment and orders dated April 27, and July 13, 1956, of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos.
Daphtary, Solicitor General of India,, R. Gan.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
That petition was dismissed by Rajagopalan J. on July 9, 1956, and the Writ Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No323 and 324 of 1956.
of the appellant, and granted permits instead to the respondents.
Revisions were preferred against this order by the aggrieved applicants under s. 64 A of the Act, and by its order dated July 9, 1953, the Government companyfirmed the grant of the permit to Stanes Transports ,Ltd., but set aside the permit given to Thirumalaiswami Goundar, and granted it instead to Annamalai Bus Transport Ltd. Thereupon, applicants Nos.
The appellant filed Writ Appeal No.
30, the V.C.K. Bus Service.
133 1 c of the Constitution, and they raise a question of some importance as to the true legal character of a permit when it is renewed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 IV of 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
24 and 30 moved the High Court of Madras under Aft.
42 of 1956.
333 of 1956 and Writ Appeal No.
It should be mentioned that the operation of the order dated February 19, 1953 was stayed pending the disposal of the revision under s. 64 A and the writ proceedings in the High Court, with the result that both Thondamuthur Trading Company Ltd. and V.C.K. Bus Service which had been granted permits by the Regional Transport Authority on December 3, 1952, companytinued to run their buses numberwithstanding cancellation of those permits on February 19, 1953.
Civil Appeal No.
3 and 4.
Before its expiry, the appellant applied on April 15, 1954, for a renewal thereof for a period of three years.
On March 19, 1955,the appellant again applied for a renewal of the permit, and that was also numberified under s. 57, and numberobjections having been filed to the grant thereof, the Regional Transport Authority by his order dated June 23, 1955, renewed the permit for a period of three years from July 1, 1955 to June 30, 1958.
There were appeals by some of the unsuccessful applicants to the Central Road Traffic Board, which by its order dated February 19, 1953, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the permits, one to Stanes Transports Ltd., and another to Thirumalaiswami Goundar.
pathy Iyer and R. Gopalkrishnan, for respondents Nos.
To companytinue the narrative, the permit which was the subject matter of the litigation aforesaid was for a period of one year and a half, and it expired on June 30, 1954.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. These are appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Madras on a certificate given under Art.
Against the orders of dismissal, Writ Appeals Nos.
There were as many as 39 applicants, and by his order dated December 3, 1952, the Regional Transport Authority granted one permit to applicant No.
24, the Thondamuthur Trading Company Ltd., and another to applicant No.
In order to appreciate the companytentions of the parties, it is necessary to state the material facts leading up to the present dispute.
February 19.
42 of 1956 on April 27, 1956, the respondents herein, viz.,
42 of 1956 in respect of which leave had already been granted.
Leave to appeal against that judgment was also given under Art.
It has been already stated that Writ Appeals Nos.
333 and 564 of 1956.
After the High Court delivered its judgment in Writ Appeal No.
333 of 1956 for a Writ of Prohibition restraining the Regional Transport Authority from Cancelling the permit, and that was dismissed by Rajagopala Ayyangar J. on the ground that when the original permit was set aside, the renewal thereof fell to the ground.
In the result, they dismissed the appeal, but granted a certificate under Art.
Thereupon, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
