Case: Maharashtra State Road Transportcorporation Vs. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service.Amravati &amp; Ors

the applicant for the certiorari would simply so state in his affidavit, and thus its non-production would be excused at that stage. If the court was persuaded that the conviction or order when in writing would probably be quashable, it would grant the certiorari, and order return of the record of adjudication. It is well settled by several English authorities that even though there was no such record when the inferior tribunal received the writ of certitori it could not defeat the writ by making a return that the record was not drawn up or that it had only made an oral order. If it did so, then the return would be quashed and the tribunal directed to enter the conviction or order and return it: R. v. Levermore, (1700) 1 Salk 146; R. v. Lichfield, (1843) 4 QB 893; R. v. Coles, (1845) 8 QB 75; and R. v. Trafford, (1855) 4 WR 55. This was the legal position even though at common law a practice bad grown up of not drawing up convictions until an appeal was taken or a certiorari received, which practice was continued by the Summary Conviction Rules, 1915, R. 53 and later by the Magistrates Courts Rules 1952, Rule 19 (1). These rules referred to convictions not being drawn up till needed for an appeal or other "legal purpose." That an oral order was a legally valid order is also indicated by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Rex v. Newington Licensing Justices, (1948) 1. KB 681 in which the lessee of premises in respect of which a justices off-licence was in force applied for the transfer of the licence to her from the previous lessee and licensee. At the hearing of the application it appeared that the applicant had mortgaged the premises by way of sub-demise to the lessors and the justices considering the mortgage to be an agreement or other assurance under which the licence was to be transferred and held within the meaning of S. 25, sub-section (2), of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, purported to order the applicant to produce it. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the justices had no power to order the production of any document even if it were a document which the section required to be produced and that in any view the mortgage was not such a document, and the order of the justices was therefore made without jurisdiction. The order of the justices was, however, made orally at the bearing of the application and had not been reduced into writing at the time when the motion for an order of certiorari was made. On that point the Court of Appeal held that it had no power to deal with any order but an order in writing in proceedings for certiorari. The court, therefore, refused to give judgment until the order was reduced into writing, but consented to hear the arguments on an undertaking being given by the parties that the order would be duly reduced into writing and produced before the Court. After the Court of Appeal had heard the arguments a written order was drawn up by the justices and produced before the Court which thereafter delivered the judgment and quashed the order of the grant of a writ. Reference should in this context be made to Section12 (3) of the Tribunals and Inquires Act, 1958 (6 and 7 Elizabeth 2, c. 26) which contemplates that a tribunal or any Minister may furnish a statement, either written or oral, of the reasons for the decision if requested on or before the giving or notification of the decision, to state the reasons. Section 12 provides as follows:"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where after the appointed day-(a) any such tribunal as is specified in the First Schedule to this Act gives any decision, or(b) any Minister notifies any decision taken by him after the holding by him or on his behalf of a statutory inquiry,....................................................it shall be the duty of the tribunal or Minister to furnish a statement, either written or oral, of the reasons for the decision if requested, on or before the giving or notification of the decision, to state the reasons:Provided that the statement may be refused, or the specification of the reasons restricted, on grounds of national security, and the tribunal or Minister may refuse to furnish the statement to a person not primarily concerned with the decision if of opinion that to furnish it would be contrary to the interests of any person primarily concerned... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .(3) Any statement of the reasons for such a decision as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-section (1) of this Section, whether given in pursuance of that sub-section or of any other statutory provision, shall be taken to form part of the decision and accordingly to be incorporated in the record.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .It should be noticed that under this section, the statement of reasons may be oral and any such statement "shall be taken to be a part of the decision and accordingly to be incorporated in the record". Further, the duty to give reasons arises only, when a request to give them is made to the tribunal or to the Minister. No such duty arises under this sub-section if the request is made after the decision has been given or notified.15. We are therefore of the opinion that in the absence of any statutory provision there is noting wrong in principle if an administrative tribunal gives a decision orally and subsequently reduces to writing the reasons thereof and communicates it to the parties. We accordingly reject the argument of Mr. Phadke on this aspect of the case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8.It is true that S. 58 (1) (a) provides that the duration of the permit should be not less than three years and not more than five years as the R. T. A. may specify in the permit. But there is nothing in S. 48 (1) of the Act which states that the R. T. A. is required to specify expressly in the order of the grant of the permit as to for what period the permit is to be effective. It is manifest, however, in the present case that the period of validity of the permit should be deemed to be five years because the order of the R. T. A. should be construed as an order of grant of a stage carriage permit " in accordance with the application under S. 48 (l) of the Act.In other words, the order of the R. T. A. dated May 10, 1965 should be construed in the context of the language of S. 48 (1) of the Act which empowers the R. T. A. to grant a stage carriage permit "in accordance with the application" or "with such modifications as it deems fit or to refuse to grant such a permit." In the present case, the R. T. A. did not make any modification and it must therefore be deemed that the grant of the permit was made in accordance with the application of the appellant which expressly declares the period of validity of the permit applied for to be of five years (See the application of the appellant printed at page 205 of Vol. II of the Paper Book).Reference may be made in this connection to Rule 80 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules which provides for the forms of application for permits and to Form P. St. S. A. prescribed under that Rule which requires the application to mention for what period the stage carriage permit is to be granted. We are accordingly of the opinion that the order of the R.T. A. dated May 10, 1965 cannot be held to be illegal merely because the period of validity of the permit has not been expressly mentioned therein.It was, however, argued by Mr. Phadke on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the period of commencement of the permit should have been mentioned by the R. T. A. in its order of May 10, 1965 and the omission of the R. T. A. to do so invalidated the order. It was pointed out by Mr. Phadke that the order of the grant of permit was made on May 10, 1965 by the R. T. A. but the permits were actually issued to the appellant on April 5, 1967 to be effective for five years from at date.There is, however, nothing in the Act or in the Rules to suggest that the R. T. A. is under an obligation to mention in the order of grant of permit the actual date from which the permit as to be effective.Phadke, referred to S. 48 (3) (i) of the Act which states that the R. T. A., if it decides to grant a permit, may grant the permit for a service of stage carriage of a specified description and may subject to any rules that may be made under the Act, attach to the permit a condition that the service or any specified part thereof shall be commenced with effect from a specified date.It is manifest that this statutory provision is merely permissive and it does not apply to the order of grant of a permit which is dealt with in S. 48 (1) of the Act. In the absence of any express statutory provision it must be taken that the date of the commencement of the period of the permit would be the date from which the permit is actually issued which is April 5, 1967 in the present case.The view that we have expressed is borne out by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Shree Laxmi Bus Transport Co. v. R. T. A., Rajkot, (1960) 62 Bom LR 958   in which it was said that when an application for renewal of a stage carriage permit is granted under S. 58 of the Act, subsequent to the date on which the period of the permit expires, the period specified in the renewal cannot be made to commence retrospectively from the date of expiry of the permit sought to be renewed but will commence from the date on which it is actually renewed. Hence it is not possible to accept the argument of Mr. Phadke that the order of the R.T.A. dated May 10, 1965 is illegal merely because the date of commencement of the operation of the permit is not specified therein. In our opinion, the High court was in error in holding that the order of the R. T. A. dated May 10, 1965 was legally invalid either because the period of validity of the permit or the date of commencement was not mentioned therein.9. The next contention put forward by Mr. Phadke is that the order of the R.T.A. dated September 10/11, 1965 fixing the date of the commencement of the service was an order which was tantamount to a review of the previous order of the R. T. A. dated May, 10, 1965 and as no express power of review is conferred on the R. T. A. by any prevision of the Act, the order of September 10/11, 1965 was illegal and ultra vires. In thisHigh Court has taken the view that the order of the R. T. A. dated September 10/11, 1965 was invalid because it was made on a compromise reached by the parties during the operation of the stay order of the High Court in Civil Application No. 488 of 1965. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in taking the view that the R. T. A. had violated the stay order. The parties had themselves approached the R. T. A. on the basis of the compromise which was meant to put an end to a long protracted litigation and which allowed time to the private operators to wind up their business. On a perusal of the order of the R. T. A. dated September 10/11, 1965 if is manifest that the R.. T. A. was careful to say that the compromise will come into effect only after the withdrawal of the writ petitions by the private operators. To put it differently, the order made by the R. T. A. on September 10/11, 1965 was a conditional order, namely, an order which was intended to come into effect only after the writ petitions in the High Court were withdrawn by the private operators.It is not disputed that the roder of the R. T. A., though dated September 10/11, 1965 was formally announced on October 16, 1965 after the private operators had withdrawn the writ petitions on October 8, 1965. In these circumstances we hold that there is no violation of the stay order of the High Court and the order of the R. T. A. dated September 10/11, 1965 which was formally announced on October 16,1965 is not in any way invalid.11. In any event, we are satisfied that it is not open to the private operators including respondent No. 1 to apply for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of the R. T. A. date September 10/11, 1965 in view of then conduct. It is not disputed that the private operators including respondent No. 1 were present in the meeting of the R. T. A. held on September 10/11, 1965 either personally or through duly appointed Counsel. Respondent No. 1 and the other private operators assured the R. T. A. at the hearing that they would withdraw the writ petitions pending in the High Court On such assurances and subject to the actual withdrawal of the writ petitions in terms of the assurance, the R. T. A. considered the mattered in the said meeting and after hearing the parties, made an order giving effect to the compromise. It is obvious that the private operators including respondent No. 1 were parties to the order dated September 10/11, 1965, had accepted that order, acted upon it and derive benefits and advantages from it for nearly one year and 9 months. But for the sat order which suspended the operation of the permit of the appellant till July 1, 1967 the private operators including respondent No. 1 could not have got temporary permits to operate on the same routes as no stage carriage permits could be issued under Section 62 of the Act during the subsistence of substantive permits. In these circumstances we consider that there was such acquiescence in the R. T. A.s order dated September 10/11, 1965 on the part of respondent No. 1 and other private operators as to disentitle them to a grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.It is well established that the writ of certiorari will not be granted in a case where there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the adverse party. The principle is to a great extent, similar to though not identical with, the exercise of discretion in the Court ofour opinion, the principle of this decision applies to the present case and since respondent No. 1 and the other private operators had not even pleaded any circumstances justifying the delay or their conduct, the High Court was in error in granting a writ of certiorari in theirsignificant fact in the present case is that the decision of the R. T. A. on June 28/ 29, 1967 was given after hearing respondent No, 1 and the other private operators who were present at the meeting of the R. T. A, either personally or through Counsel and reasons for the decision were also communicated to respondent No. 1 and other private operators by a registered letter dated July 20, 1967. The principle of the decisions of this Court in (1967) 3 SCR 302   = (AIR 1967 SC 1606  ) and in Civil App. No. 657 of 1967, D/-17-8-l967 (SC) as therefore no bearing upon the determination of the question involved in the present case. Apart from any requirement imposed by the statute or statutory rules either expressly or by necessary implication we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Phadke that there is any general principle that a statutory tribunal should always give its judgment in writing and should always give reasons thereof immediately with the pronouncement of the judgment.We are therefore of the opinion that in the absence of any statutory provision there is noting wrong in principle if an administrative tribunal gives a decision orally and subsequently reduces to writing the reasons thereof and communicates it to the parties. We accordingly reject the argument of Mr. Phadke on this aspect of the case.