Appeal No 159 of 1951
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 13th of April 1951 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras Rajamannar CJ and Somasundaram J in CMP No 12215 of 1950
MC Setalvad C R Pattabhi Raman with him for the appellant
CK Daphtary M Natesan with him for the respondent No1 VKT Chari Advocate General of Madras R Ganapathi lyer with him for respondent No 4 1952
March 17
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J
This appeal arises as the result of special leave to appeal granted by this Court on the 1st of May 1951 against an order of the Madras High Court dated 13th April 1951 quashing certain proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority Tanjore and the Cen tral Traffic Board Madras dated 19th January 1950 and 3rd March 585 1950 respectively and an order of the first respondent the State of Madras dated 7th November 1950 and direct ing the issue to Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd Petitioners before the High Court of permits for the five buses in respect of which a joint application had been made original ly by them and one TD Balasubramania Pillai
The present appellant G Veerappa Pillai was the fourth respondent in the High Court
The present first respondents Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd were the peti tioners before the High Court Present respondents Nos 2 3 and 4 were respectively respondents Nos 1 2 and 3 before the High Court
The dispute is between the appellant and Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd who were competing bus proprietors in the Tanjore District and it is over the issues of five perma nent permits for buses Nos
MDO 81 MDO 230 MDO 6 MDO 7 and M DO 759 on the route between Kumbakonam and Karaikal
It has been a long drawn game with many moves counter moves advances and checkmates both sides display ing unusual assiduity and skill in their manoeuvres for position
But it is unnecessary to set out in great detail all the steps taken as they have been narrated in the order of High Court and many of them are of insignificant rele vance for disposal of this appeal
I shall state here only what is material
The C  permits for the five buses stood originally in the name of Balasubramania Pillai
The buses were agreed to be purchased from him by Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd and there was a joint application by the transferor and trans feree on 10th March 1944 for transfer of the ownership and of the C  permits in the name of the purchasers
Two days later Veerappa Pillai proprietor of the Sri Sathi Viias Bus Service who is the appellant before us applied for temporary permits to ply two of his own vehicles over the same route stating that the vehicles of the two agencies which held the permits were mostly out of action
It was a fact that out of the five buses sold 586 by Balasubramania Pillai only two were then running the other three were under repairs
The permanent permits for the sold buses were suspended by order of the Secretary dated 28th March 1944
Temporary permits for buses MDO 920 894 918 MSC 7632 and 7482 had been issued to Veerappa Pillai during the same month
Now we come to another chapter in the story
Balasubra mania Pillai resiled from the joint application and repudi ated it as having been got from him by fraud
The Secre tary Road Traffic Board thereupon refused to transfer the ownership on the 19th March 1944 and this order was con firmed by the Board on 29th May 1944 Balasubramania Pillai and Veerappa Pillai made a joint application on 10th April 1944 for transfer of the buses and the original permits in favour of Veerappa Pillai who had on the same date agreed to purchase the vehicles
The Secretary granted this applica tion on the same date Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd took the matter before the Central Road Traffic Board and they made an order on 16th August 1944 upholding the issue of tempo rary permits to Veerappa Pillai for his buses MDO 920 894918 MSC 7632 and 7482 but setting aside the trans fer of registry of the original buses and the transfer of the permits relating to the same
On an application by Veerappa Pillai to review its order dated 16th August 1944 the Central Road Traffic Board allowed on 27th November 1944 only the transfer of the ownership of the buses but not a transfer of the permits
Yet another move in the game was this Veerappa Pillai filed a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge Kumbako nam on 3rd October 1944 for recovery of possession of the original five buses from Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd on the strength of his purchase from Balasubramania Pillai
The Subordinate Judge appointed Veerappa Pillai as Receiver on 17th March 1945 and the five disputed buses were deliv ered to him on 26th April 1945
Two of the buses MDO 6 and 7 were repaired by him and put on the route under his temporary permits
The suit was decreed in 587 his favour on 2nd May 1946
Later he repaired the other three buses MDO 759 230 and 81 and began to run them on the same route under the temporary permits he held
Veerappa Pillai was discharged from receivership on 18th September 1946
On the strength of the Sub Court decree Veerappa Pillai again applied for a permanent transfer of the permits and on 22nd July 1946 the Central Road Traffic Board trans ferred the petition to the Regional Transport Authority with an intimation that it saw no objection to the issue of regular permits to Veerappa Pillai for the disputed buses or to their transfer in his name provided there were valid permits in existence
This view appears to have been modi fied later and on 2nd September 1946 the Regional Trans port Officer directed the issue of temporary permits to the buses for the period from 3rd September 1946 to 31st October 1946 subject to the condition that the issue of the permits did not affect the rights of either party in the matter under dispute
Thereupon the Government was moved by Veerappa Pillai and also by Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd but the Government declined to interfere and the result was an order on 30th June 1947 by the Regional Transport Authority to the following effect  Since the subject matter is on appeal before the High Court the matter will lie over pending the decision of the High Court
The temporary permits are continued as is being done A fresh petition by Veerappa Pillai to the Central Road Traffic Board Madras was unsuccessful but a further appeal to the Government of Madras ended in his favour in an order dated 29th March 1949
The order is in these terms  Shri Sathi Viias Bus Service Porayar Tanjore dis trict have been permitted by the Regional Transport Author ity Tanjore to run their buses MDO 6 7 81 230 and 750 on the Kumbakonam Karaikal route on temporary permits from 1944 pending 588 the High Court s decision on the question of permanent ownership of the buses
Government consider it undesirable to keep these buses running on temporary permits for a long and indefinite period
Further Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service have secured the decision of the Sub Court Kumbako nam in their favour about the permanent ownership of the buses
In the circumstances the Regional Transport Authori ty Tanjore is directed to grant permanent permits for the buses of Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service Porayar referred to above in lieu of the existing temporary permits
 On the basis of this Government order permanent permits were issued in favour of Veerappa Pillai on 18th April 1949
Getting to know of this last order Messrs Raman and Raman Ltdapproached the Government Madras with a petition praying for clarification of the order by making it expressly subject to the decision of the High Court regarding the title to the said five buses and that in the event of the High Court deciding the appeal in favour of Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd the above said five permanent permits will be taken away from Veerappa Pillai and given to them The Minister of Transport who dealt with the matter stated on the petition that was my inten tion also
 The High Court reversed the decree of the Sub Court on 2nd September 1949 and came to the conclusion that the title of Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd to the five buses prevailed over that of Veerappa Pillai
On 19th September 1949 they applied to the Government for cancellation of the five permits issued to Veerappa Pillai and for grant of the same to them
The Government declined to interfere as the Regional Transport Authority was the competent authority vide order dated 16th November 1949
In their application to the Regional Fransport Authority dated 28th November 1949 Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd asked for withdrawal of the permits
In the meantime that is on 14th October 1949 Veerappa Pillai applied for renewal of his permanent permits held for his own 589 buses Nos
MDO 1357 20 1366 1110 1077 MDO 1368 and MSC7632 which had been substituted for the disputed buses as they had become unroadworthy and useless
The application for renewal has under section 58 sub clause 2 of the Act to be treated as a fresh application for new permits
This procedure was followed and on 22nd October 1949 a notification was issued inviting objections against the renewal and giving 30th November 1949 as the date of hearing
No objections were received and the Secretary renewed the permits for two years from 1st January 1950
This order was dated 3rd January 1950
The Regional Trans port Authority dealing with the application of Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd dated 28th November 1949 resolved on 19th January 1950 that the permanent permits issued to Veerap pa Pillai should be cancelled that the route should be declared vacant in respect of the five buses and fresh applications should be invited and dealt with on the merits
The order further stated that in the meanwhile Sri G Veerappa Pillai and Raman and Raman will be given temporary permits for running two and three buses respectively on the route
The permanent permits will be cancelled with imme diate effect
Raman and Raman should put in the buses as quickly as possible
Till then Sri Veerappa Pillai will be given temporary permits so as not to dislocate public traf fic
 Both the parties were dissatisfied with this order and preferred appeals to the Central Road Traffic Board Madras which dismissed the appeal of Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd and restored the permanent permits of Veerappa Pillai by order dated the 3rd March 1950
Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd moved the Government but it declined to interfere by GO dated 7th November 1950
Thereupon Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd moved the High Court on 4th December 1950 under article 226 of the Constitution in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No 12215 of 1950 for a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders and the proceedings of the 590 Regional Transport Authority the Central Road Traffic Board Madras and the State of Madras dated 19th January 1950 3rd March 1950 and 7th November 1950 respectively and for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other such appro priate directions to the first respondent to transfer issue or grant the five pucca permits in respect of the route Kumbakonam to Karaikkal to the petitioner herein Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd It is on this petition that the order challenged in this appeal was made by the High Court
The High Court took the view that throughout all the stages prior to the High Court s decree the parties the transport authorities vested with the power to issue per mits and the Government also proceeded upon the footing that the transfer of the permits was dependent on the title to the buses and that Veerappa Pillai obtained the temporary and permanent permits only in his capacity as transferee and not in his individual right
To quote the learned Chief Justicethe conduct of the parties the attitude of the transport authorities including the Government are all explicable only on the assumption that the rights of parties were consequent on the ownership of the five vehicles in question
The fourth respondent having obtained the benefit of temporary and permanent permits as a transferee from Balasubramania Pillai all this time cannot be heard now to say after the decision of this Court which has negatived his claim and upheld the claim of the applicant that the appli cant should not enjoy the fruits of his success
 He further points out that the procedure laid down by the Motor Vehi cles Act and the rules for grant of fresh permits was not followed and that long before the application for renewal was allowed the Regional Transport Authority had been informed of the decision of the High Court
The order of the Central Road Traffic Board was in his opinion most unsatis factory as it was based on a quibbling distinction between withdrawal and cancellation of the permits
In his view the orders complained against deprived Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd of the fruits of the 591 decree obtained by them at the hands of the High Court after much expenditure of time and money
An examination of the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act does not support the view that the issue of a permit for a bus which falls within the definition of a stage carriage  is necessarily dependent on the ownership of vehicle
All that is required for obtaining a permit is possession of the bus
As ownership is not a condition precedent for the grant of permits and as a person can get a permit provided he is in possession of a vehicle which satisfies the requirements of the statute or the rules framed thereunder we have to hold that the parties and the authorities were labouring under a misconception if they entertained a contrary view
But the assumption on which they proceeded may perhaps be explained if not justified on the ground that it was supposed that the question of ownership of the vehicles had an important or material bearing on the question as to which of them had a preferen tialclaim for the permits
It may well be it Was one of the factors to be taken into account and it seems to us that this was apparently the reason why the question of issue of permanent permits was postponed from time to time till we come to the order of the Government dated 29th March on petitions presented by both the contestants
If matters had stood as they were till the Government had made this order something could have been said in favour of Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd in the event of their ultimate success in the High Court as regards the title to the five buses
But the said order altered the situation
In the order the direction for the grant of permanent permits is not rested solely on the decision of the Sub Court in favour of Veerappa Pillai but another reason was also given namely that Government considered it undesirable to keep the buses running on temporary permits for a long and indefinite period
In giving this reason they were stating a policy
77 592 As observed already the High Court by their judg ment dated 2nd September 1949 reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed Veerappa Pillai s suit for possession of the buses based on his title
If it were the law that the question of possession based on ownership was decisive as regards the grant of permits and if no other circumstances were available to be taken into account when the question of the issue of permanent permits again came up for consideration it would have been easy to hold that Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd had at least a preferential claim
But unfortunately for them both these requisites are not satisfied
It has been point ed out already that nowhere do we find in the Act anything to indicate that the issue of permits depends on ownership
Other circumstances which had a material bear ing as to which of them was entitled to the permits had come into existence since the date of the original joint application and were taken into account by the transport authorities and by the Government
The order of 19th January 1950 of the Regional Transport Authority sought to render rough and ready justice between the par ties by the adoption of what may be called a middle course
The terms of the order have already been set out
Before disposing of the appeals of both the parties the Central Traffic Board appears to have called for a report from the Regional Transport Officer
In this report attention was drawn to the fact that all the five buses had been replaced by new vehicles and that the registration certificates had been cancelled as a result of the replacement
After Balasubramania Pillai it was Veerappa Pillai who was running the buses continuously on this route for nearly 5 years and he also obtained the privilege of securing the permanent permits
The Central Traffic Board s order of 3rd March 1950 restoring the permanent permits of Veerappa Pillai was based on the fact that Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd asked for withdrawal of the permits and not their cancellation and that no opportunity had been given to Veerappa Pillai to show cause why his permits should not be cancelled and 593 the procedure prescribed for cancellation was not followed
When the Government was moved by Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd under section 64 a of the Motor Vehicles Act they had before them a petition for withdrawal of the perma nent permits issued to Veerappa Pillai and for transfer or grant of five pucca permits  relating to the five buses
The Government granted stay of the appellate order of the Central Road Traffic Board pending disposal of the revision petition and called for a report from the subordinate trans port authorities
Two important facts were brought to the notice of the Government in the report Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd did not file any objections to the renewal of the permits sought by Veerappa Pillai
What is more important they had no permits from the French authorities enabling them to run any buses on the portion of the route which lay in French territory
It was further pointed out that there was no subsisting joint application to support the request for transfer and that the original permits in the name of Bala subramanian had ceased to exist after 31st December 1944
The Government had also before them two petitions dated 8th March 1950 and 25th October 1950 from Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd and two petitions dated 29th March 1950 and 8th June 1950 from Veerappa Pillai
It is on the basis of all these materials that the Government de clined to interfere with the decision of the Central Road Traffic Board
It is contended for the appellant that in this state of affairs the High Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution had no right to interfere with the orders of the transport authorities
It is unnecessary for the disposal of this appeal to consider and decide on the exact scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
Whether the writs it can issue must be analogous to the writs of habeas corpus mandamus prohibition quo warranto and certiorari specified therein and the power is subject to all the limitations or restrictions 594 imposed on the exercise of this jurisdiction or whether the High Court is at liberty to issue any suitable directions or orders or writs untramelled by any condi tions whenever the interests of justice so require is a large and somewhat difficult problem which does not arise for solution now
Mr Setalvad appearing for the appellant urged two narrower grounds as sufficient for his purposes
Firstly he urged that however wide the jurisdiction of the High Court might be under Article 226 it could never exer cise its powers under the article in such a manner as to convert itself into a court of appeal sitting in judgment over every tribunal or authority in the State discharging administrative or quasi judicial functions
Secondly he maintained that the Motor Vehicles Act with the rules framed thereunder dealing with the grant of permits is a self contained code and that in respect of the rights and liabil ities created by such a statute the manner of enforcement must be sought within the statute itself
It was further urged by him that in any event the High Court could not substitute its own view or discretion for the view taken or discretion exercised by the specified authorities even if it was erroneous or unsound
Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are obvi ously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction or in excess of it or in violation of the principles of natural justice or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them or there is an error apparent on the face of the record and such act omission error or excess has resulted in manifest injustice
However extensive the jurisdiction may be it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a Court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made Mr Daphtary who appeared for the respondent said nothing to controvert this position
His argument 595 was that if all along the authorities and the Government had proceeded upon a particular footing and dealt with the rights of the parties on that basis it was not open to them afterwards to change front and give the go by altogether to the conception of the rights of parties entertained by them till then
According to him there was manifest injustice to his client in allowing them to do so and this was the reason which impelled the High Court to make the order which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal
The Motor Vehicles Act is a statute which creates new rights and liabilities and prescribes an elaborate procedure for their regulation
No one is entitled to a permit as of right even if he satisfies all the prescribed conditions
The grant of a permit is entirely within the discretion of the transport authorities and naturally depends on several circumstances which have to be taken into account
The Regional Transport Authority and the Provincial Transport Authority are entrusted under section 42 with this power
They may be described as administrative bodies exercising quasijudicial functions in the matter of the grant of per mits
Under rule 8 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules the Regional Transport Authority is called the Road Traffic Board and the Provincial Transport Authority is called the Central Road Traffic Board
These bodies or authorities are constituted by the Provincial  Government
The matters which are to be taken into account in granting or refusing a stage carriage permit are specified in section 47
By delegation under rule 134 A the Secretary of the Road Traf fic Board may exercise certain powers as regards the grant or refusal of stage carriage permits and under rule 136 there is an appeal to the Board from these orders
Similar powers of delegation are vested in the Secretary to the Central Board and an appeal lies to the Central Board under rule 1481
From an original order of the Road Traffic Board there is an appeal to the Central Board and from the original orders of the Central Board to the Government vide rules 147 and 148 An amendment introduced by the Madras Act XX of 1948 596 and found as section 64 A in the Act vests a power of revi sion in the Provincial Government
Besides this specific provision there is a general provision in section 43 A that the Provincial Government may issue such orders and direc tions of a general character as it may consider necessary to the Provincial Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority in respect of any matter relating to road trans port and such transport authority shall give effect to all such orders and directions
There is therefore a regular hierarchy of administrative bodies established to deal with the regulation of transport by means of motor vehicles
Thus we have before us a complete and precise scheme for regulating the issue of permits providing what matters are to be taken into consideration as relevant and prescribing appeals and revisions from subordinate bodies to higher authorities
The remedies for the redress of grievances or the correction of errors are found in the statute itself and it is to these remedies that resort must generally be had
As observed already the issue or refusal of permits is solely within the discretion of the transport authorities and it is not a matter of right
We are accordingly of opinion that this was not a case for interference with the discretion that was exercised by the Transport Authorities paying regard to all the facts and the surrounding circumstances
Further it will be noticed that the High Court here did not content itself with merely quashing the proceedings it went further and directed the Regional Transport Authority Tanjore to grant to the petitioner permits in respect of the five buses in respect of which a joint application was made originally by the petitioner and Balasubramania Pillai and that in case the above buses have been condemned the petitioner shall be at liberty to provide substitutes within such time as may be prescribed by the authorities
 Such a direction was clearly in excess of its powers and jurisdic tion
597 For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court set aside
Each party will bear their own costs of these proceedings throughout
Appeal allowed
Agent for respondent No 1 MSK Sastri
Agent for respondent No 4 PA Mehta


Summary:
On 1631984 the police raided the business premise and godown of the respondents and sized certain essential commodities which were stored there in contravention of certain orders issued under section 3 read with section 5 of the 
On the same day the respondents were arrested for the commission of an offence punishable under section 71 a ii of the Act
But chargesheet was submitted under section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure on 3091986 after expiry of the period of six months
The Special Court constituted under section 12A took cognizance of the offence on 1331987 on the basis of the charge sheet
The respondent No 1 moved an application before the Special Court to quash the proceeding since the case was triable as a summon case in view of section 12AA 1 f of the  sub section 5 of Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted
Relying on the decision in Kanta Dey vs The State of West Bengal 1986 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 158 the Special Court rejected the application holding that the provision of section 167 5 of the Code had no application to a case initiated for the commission of an offence punishable under section 71 a ii of the Act
571 Respondents  revision application against the order of Special Court was allowed by single judge of the high Court
The High Court relying on the decision in public Prosecutor High Court of Hyderabad vs Anjaneyulu  held that sub section 5 of section 167 of the Code stood attracted
On the High court quashing the prosecution the respondents were discharged
The present appeal by special leave was filed by the State against the order of the High Court
On the questions 1 whether a Special Court constituted under Section 12A of the is empowered to exercise powers under section 167 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in relation to an accused person forwarded to it under section 12AA 1 b of the Act and ii whether a Special Court can take cognizance of the offence and proceed to try and punish the accused person notwithstanding the fact that the charge sheet is filed after expiry of the period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused person partly allowing the appeal this Court HELD 11
From the plain language of the provisions introduced by Act 18 of 1981 the legislature desired to ensure that all offences under the Act were tried by the Special Court constituted under section 12A in a summary manner applying the provisions of sections 262 to 265 of the Code and further provided that in case of conviction the sentence shall not exceed two years bringing the offence within the definition of a summons case under the Code
But for the insertion of section 12A in its present form and section 12AA the offence under section 7 1 a ii of the Act would have attracted the definition of a warrant case
578 D 12
The avowed object of these legislative changes was expeditious disposal of offences under the Act by Special Courts employing summary procedure and applying the provisions of the Code to such trials save as otherwise provided
This enabled the special Courts to take cognizance of the offences under the Act without a formal order of commitment
578 C 13
After the constitution of Special Courts all offences under the Act have to he tried by that court in a summary ways by applying the provision of section 
262 to 265 both inclusive of the Code
The proviso places a fetter on the power of the Court in the matter of passing a sentence on conviction namely notwithstanding the fact that section 71 a  ii prescribes a punishment extending upto seven years and fine Special Court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years 
It is this proviso which attracts the definition of a summon case the trial whereof must he 572 undertaken in accordance with the procedure outlined in Chapter XX of the Code
579 A B 14Section 167 5says that if in any case triable as a summons casethe investigation is wit concluded within a period of six months from the date on which tile accused came to he arrested the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the Magistrate for special reasons and in the interest of justice considers it necessary
to permit continuation of the investigation
579 C 15
The object of sub section clearly 5 of Section 167 is to ensure prompt investigation into all offence triable as summons case to avoid hardship and harassment to the accused person
646 C 16
The prosecution in question being a summons case triable in a summary manner as per procedure outlined in sections 262 to 265 of the Code which in turn attracts tile procedure meant for summons case it is obvious that the power conferred by sub section 5 of section 167 can be invoked by the Special Court by virtue or clause c of section 12AA 1 of the Act which in terms states that the Special Court may exercise the same powers which a Magistrate may exercise under section 167 of the Code
Thus a special Court is expressly empowered by clause c of section 12AA 1 to exercise the same powers which a Megistrate having jurisdiction to try a cast may exercise under section 167 of the Code in relation to an accused person who has been forwarded to him under that provision
579 1 17
The High Court was right in concluding that section 1675 of the Code was attracted in the present case and the Special Court was entitled to exercise the power conferred by that sub section
579 F 18
In the case of an offence punishable under section 7i a ii of the Act which is tried by a Special Court constituted under section 12A the provision of sub section 5 of section 167 of the Code get attracted if tile investigation has not been completed within the period allowed by that subsection
582 F 19
The Special Court was competent to entertain the police report restricted to six months investigation and take cognizance on the basis thereof Therefore the Special Court is directed to proceed with the trial from that stage on wards and complete the same as early as possible in accordance 573 with law
582 G Kanta Dev vs The State of west Bengal 1986 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 158 1986 1 CHN 267 and Babulal Agarwal vs State 1987 1 CHN 218 overruled
639 B C Jnan Prakesh Agarwala vs State of West Bengal 1992 1 CHN 218 and Public Prosecution High Court of Hyderabad  etc
vs Ajnaneyulu and etc
  approved
Hussainara Khantoon  Ors
vs Home Secretary State of Bihar Patna   referred to
639 H 647 F