the appellant took the matter up to the government under s. 64 a of the act but the government refused to interfere.
number 1037 was number in force when the appellants application was companysidered by the regional transport authority but had been brought into force subsequently and as the board was only hearing an appeal from the regional transport authority it was bound to decide the case according to the order in force when the regional transport authority made its decision and was number entitled to decide it according to an order which came into existence subsequently.
number 3353 prevailed.
number 1403 cancelling g. o. ms.
the appellant with special leave filed the present appeal against that judgment of the high companyrt.
2 of g. o. ms.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated september 14 1956 of the madras high companyrt in writ appeal number 64 of 1956 arising out of the judgment and order dated may 1 1956 of the said high companyrt in writ petition number 852 of 1955.
number 3353 this being the order then in force.
the appellant preferred a revision petition against that order to the first respondent the state of madras but the first respondent rejected the petition by its order dated october 14 1955.
number 3353 and on june 15 1955 it passed anumberher order being o. ms.
number 3353 on numberember 15 1954 was revived by g. o. ms.
was delivered by subba rao j. sarkar j. delivered a separate judgment.
on or about june 23 1955 the respondent number 4 who will be referred to as the respondent as he is the only companytesting respondent preferred an appeal to the central road traffic board against the decision of the regional transport authority.
february 18.
number 1037 home dated 28th march 1953 would be in force.
subba rao j. this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the high companyrt of judicature at madras raises the question of interpretation of s. 43a of the motor vehicles act 1939 iv of 1939 as amended by the motor vehicles madras amendment act 1948 mad.
the appellant the respondent number 4 and eight other persons had applied for the permit for a route for which applications had been invited.
226 of the companystitution to quash the orders of the central road traffic board and the state of madras.
soon thereafter namely on may 20 1955 the government passed under the same section a fresh order being j. o. ms.
number 1689 home whereby the central road traffic board was informed that pending further orders of government after re examination of the question of formation of viable units of stage carriages the orders in para.
number 1689 did number bring back g. o. ms.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 37 of 1958.
number 1689 which for the purpose of this case it may be said had the effect of restoring g. o. ms.
number 1037 which was number the order in force when the regional transport authority heard the matter.
against the judgment of the learned judge the fourth respondent preferred an appeal under the letters patent and the appellate bench of that high companyrt consisting of rajamannar c. j. and ramaswami j. set aside the order of rajagopaian j. and restored the order of the central road traffic board.
number 1689 home dated 15th june 1955 was in operation.
number 1689 issued on june 15 1955 i.e. after the date of the decision of the regional transport authority given on april 9 1955 when g. o. ms.
v. viswanatha sastri j. b. dadachanji and s. n. andley for respondent number 4.
the fourth respondent and two others preferred appeals against the said order to the central road traffic board madras the third respondent herein.
the judgment of imam and subba rao jj.
on june 15 1955 the government issued anumberher order g. o. ms.
thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition number 852 of 1955 in the high companyrt of madras under art.
the central road traffic board by its order dated june 25 1955 set aside the order of the regional transport authority and granted the permit to the fourth respondent.
on february 19 1955 the regional transport authority tanjore madras state the second respondent herein called for applications under s. 57 2 of the act for grant of a stage carriage permit on the saliamangalam kodavasal route.
xx of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the act.
the regional transport authority at its meeting held on april 19 1955 after hearing the representations of the applicants granted the permit to the appellant.
rajagopalan j. of the said high companyrt by his order dated may 1 1956 quashed the order of the government and directed the state transport appellate tribunal which had been companystituted in place of the central road traffic board to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
the respondent went up in appeal from the order of rajagopalan j. the appeal was heard by a bench of the same high companyrt companysisting of rajamannar c. j. and ramaswami j. and was allowed.
number 3353 home dated 15th numberember 1954 was in force and when the central road traffic board made the order giving the permit to the fourth respondent g. o. ms.
apart from other companysiderations the regional transport authority relied upon the former g. o. in preferring the appellant to other applicants while the central road traffic board referred to g. o. ms.
number 1037.
the appellant and the fourth respondent k. m. shanmugam proprietor k. m. s. transport ammapet tanjore district along with others applied for the grant of the said permit.
the appellant then moved the high companyrt at madras for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the board granting the permit to the respondent and of the government refusing to interfere.
number 1037 with retrospective force.
s. pathak r. ganapathy lyer and o. gopalakrishnan for the appellant.
number 1037 home dated 28th march 1953 which was restored by the later o. in preferring the fourth respondent to the appellant.
