ABDUL REHMAN AND ORS. versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

ABDUL REHMAN AND ORS. versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

The High Court should not have interfered with the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting permits to the appellants, as the changed character of the route and the absence of any fault in their not appealing earlier meant that their claims remained valid. Further, with the passage of time, the appellants had operated on the route without malpractice, and cancelling their permits would be against the interest of the travelling public, which is paramount under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Parties
Appellants: Abdul Rehman and Others; Respondents: State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 March 1978
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) & Special Leave Petition / Supreme Court Appeal From Allahabad High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed (for appellants); Special Leave Petition dismissed (for Harish Chandra Mishra's part).
Legal Topics
High Court Jurisdiction Under Article 226, Grant of Stage Carriage Permits, Interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Administrative Law Transport Law Constitutional Law High Court Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Grant of Stage Carriage Permits Interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Rehman and Others

Appellants

State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) & Special Leave Petition / Supreme Court Appeal From Allahabad High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 226 with the decisions of transport authorities regarding stage carriage permits.
  2. 2 Whether the failure of the appellants to appeal the 1962 rejection order barred their later applications/claims under the changed circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court should not have interfered with the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting permits to the appellants, as the changed character of the route and the absence of any fault in their not appealing earlier meant that their claims remained valid. Further, with the passage of time, the appellants had operated on the route without malpractice, and cancelling their permits would be against the interest of the travelling public, which is paramount under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (for appellants); Special Leave Petition dismissed (for Harish Chandra Mishra's part).

Orders

  • Judgments and orders of the High Court quashing permits for appellants set aside; order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated May 5, 1973 (granting permits to appellants) restored.
  • Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1852/75 dismissed as regards Harish Chandra Mishra; no order as to costs.