The appellant carried on the business without let or hindrance until 1950 when the Municipality refused to renew his licence, whereupon he obtained a mandatory injunction from the Civil Court directing the Municipality to grant him a licence for the year 1950 51.
It appears that within two months of the decision of the High Court rule 268 was amended by the Government.
In the present case as these had already been fixed in accordance with rule 27 D, Motor Vehicles Rules, 1923, the Transport Authority companyld number fix new starting places and termini under rule 268 of the Rules passed in 1940.
In the opinion of the Bench, section 76 deals with provision for parking places and halting stations and has numberapplica tion to a permanent bus stand which is a sort of a radiating centre of all the bus traffic for the town.
The appellant questioned the jurisdiction of the Transport Authority to pass the order in question.
Before the decision of the High Court was given the bus stand was shifted to a place belonging to the Municipality in another area.
When such places have been fixed, every such vehicle shall start only from such places.
The appellant challenged the validity of these resolutions by a petition under article 226 before the Madras High Court on the ground that they were passed without jurisdiction and were companytrary to the principles of natural justice as they were passed without numberice to the appellant and without giving him an opportunity to defend his right.
The resolutions purported to have been passed under section 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which runs thus The Provincial Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the Provincial GovernMent may, in companysultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area companycerned,determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers.
It was held therefore that the Regional Transport Authority companyld number under section 76 fix starting and terminus places for motor buses.
This decree was passed on October 7, 1950.
By the amendment the words if starting places and termini have number been fixed in accordance with the provisions of any statute were deleted, and the words and after numberice to the parties affected, fix or alter from time to time for good and proper reasons, were added.
December 5.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated February 6, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras Rajamannar J. and Somasundaram J. in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
A list of such places shall be supplied by such authority to every holder of a permit for such vehicles.
Rule 268 as it originally stood ran thus In the case of public service vehicles other than motor cabs if starting places and termini have number been fixed in accordance with the provisions of any statute, the transport authority may, after companysultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable, fix starting places and termini between which such vehicles shall be permitted to be used within its jurisdiction.
R. Jagadisa Iyer for the appellant.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court companysisting of the learned Chief Justice and another learned Judge quashed the two orders as prayed for by the appellant on the grounds that the orders were passed ex parte, and that section 76 did number authorize, the respondent to close the bus stand.
On February 21, 1950, however, the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, which is the respondent in the present appeal, declared the bus stand as unsuitable with effect from April 1, 1950, and altered the starting and the terminal points from that date.
Reference was made, in the companyrse of the arguments, to rule 268, Madras Vehicles Rules, 1940, and the learned Judges observed that though the rule does empower the Transport Authority to fix starting places and termini between which public service vehicles other than motor cars shall be permitted to be used, but that this companyld be done only if starting places and termini had number already been fixed in accordance with the provisions of any statute.
This order resulted in the closing of the appellants bus stand.
This order led to another petition being filed in the High Court at Madras, praying for a writ of certiorari under article 226.
See T. E. Ebrahim Saheb v. The Regional Transport Authority Tanjore 1 .
Accordingly they suggested that the rule should be amended and a provision introduced companyferring on the appropriate authority the requisite power to alter from time to time the starting places and termini.
After hearing the appellant and the Municipality, the Board passed a resolution on November to, 1950, that for good and proper reasons, namely, the companyvenience of the travelling public, the Transport Authority had resolved to alter the starting places and termini of all public service vehicles other than motor cabs arriving, at and proceeding from Tanjore from the existing bus stand owned by the appellant to the Municipal bus stand in another area of the town.
A list of such places shall be supplied by such authority to every holder of a permit for such vehicles at the time of grant of or renewal of permits.
The Bench pointed out that the rule was defective and would lead to an impasse if the starting places and termini already fixed become unsuitable and have to be shifted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As amended, the rule runs thus In the cage of public service vehicles other than motor cabs the transport authority may after companysultation with such other authority as it may companysider desirable, and after numberice to the parties affected, fix or alter from time to time for good and proper reasons, the starting places and termini between which such vehicles shall be permitted to be used within its jurisdiction.
The appellant filed a long written statement objecting to the numberice and challenging the grounds, whereupon the respondent issued a fresh numberice on November 2, 1950, in which the original grounds were dropped and were substituted by the ground from the point of companyvenience of the travelling public.
Besides sheds for passengers and vehicles it provided other amenities.
The bus stand originally belonged to the Tanjore Municipality and the appellant merely held a licence from that authority.
16 of 1952.
Later on, the title of the Municipality to the site was questioned by a third party and in a civil litigation which ensued the title of the Municipality was negatived.
The respondent then issued a numberice to the appellant on October 25, 1950, to show cause why the bus stand should number be shifted, the grounds given being that it was not satisfactorily maintained and was situated in a limited space which was inadequate to accommodate all the buses using the stand and that it did number permit of any improvements being carried out.
2216 A 3 49 on the file of the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore.
The appellant held the licence for running the bus stand year after year.
In 1939 the Municipality granted him a licence for four months only instead of one year as required by section 270 c of the Madras Municipalities Act V of 1920 , and the appellant succeeded in vindicating his right for a whole years licence in the Civil Court by obtaining the relief for injunction and an order directing the issue of a licence against the Municipality for 1940 41.
This decision which was given by means of a resolution was companyfirmed subsequently by another resolution passed on March 31, 1950.
Thereupon the appellant obtained the lease hold right of the site from the true owner and companystructed a bus stand companyforming to the design approved by the Municipality.
Both these companytentions were rejected by the High Court and the petition was dismissed.
A.I.R. 951 Mad.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GHULAM HASAN J. This appeal brought by special leave under article 136 1 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated February 6, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dismissing the petition of the appellant under article 226, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated November 10, 1950, passed by the respondent in the following circumstances The appellant is the lessee of a site in the town of Tanjore in the State of Madras upon which he has a bus stand.
It appears that the site was approved as companyvenient and suitable for the bus stand both by the Municipality and the District authorities for buses plying from and into Tanjore.
K. T. Chari, Advocate General of Madras, V. V. Baghavan, with him for the respondent.
It was situate near the Railway Station and most of the buses leaving Tanjore for out station journeys used this bus stand both as the starting point and as the terminus.
11307 of 1950, arising out of Order dated November 10, 1950, made in C. No.
When such places have been fixed every such vehicle shall start only from such places.
