Case: V.C. K. Bus Service Ltd Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore

it seems to me easier to imply a condition precedent defeating a contract before its execution has commenced than a condition subsequent defeating the contract when it is part performed."Thus, there is no legal obstacle to implying a condition that the renewal should stand cancelled if the right of the appellant to the original permit was negatived by the High Court.14. That brings us on to the question of fact, whether on an examination of the permit and of the circumstances under which it came to be granted, we can infer that it was the intention of the Regional Transport Authority to renew the permit subject to the result of the decision of the High Court in the appeal which was then pending before it. The permit granted to the V.C.K. Bus Service on 3rd December 1952 had been cancelled on 19th February 1953, and it was only by reason of the stay orders that the bus was permitted to run. When the appellant applied for renewal on 15th April 1954, there was opposition to the grant thereof from both the respondents herein, based on the decision of the Government dated 9th July 1953, and it was in view of their objection that the Regional Transport Authority renewed the permit for one year from 1st July 1954 to 30th June 1955. It is true that when the appellant applied again for renewal on 19th March 1955, the respondents did not raise objection thereto, but as the appeals in the High Court were still pending they had good reason to believe that the renewal would not affect whatever rights might be declared in their favour by the High Court. As all the papers relating to the grant of the original permit and the subsequent proceedings were part of the record before the Regional Transport Authority when he renewed the permit on 23rd June 1955, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that he really intended to renew the permit only subject to the decision of the High Court.15. It is of the utmost importance in this connection to bear in mind that the appellant applied not for a fresh permit but for a renewal and in sanctioning it, the Regional Transport Authority expressly acted in exercise of his powers under R. 134-A read with S.58 of the Act, and if he did not expressly provide that it was subject to the decision of the High Court, it must be because he must have considered that that was implicit in the fact of its being only a renewal. That that is how the appellant understood it is clear beyond doubt from the proceedings taken by it immediately after the High Court pronounced its judgment.16. But it is argued for the appellant on the strength of the decision in Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd., 1952 S.C.R. 583: (A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 192) (E) that the mere knowledge on the part of the authorities that the rights of the parties were under litigation is not a sufficient ground to import a condition in the permit that it is subject to the result of that litigation, when in its terms it is unconditional. We do not read that decision as authority for any such broad contention. There, the question related to five permits, which had been originally granted to one Balasubramania Raman and Raman Ltd. obtained a transfer of the relative buses, and applied to the transport authorities for transfer of the permits to itself. Then Veerappa having subsequently obtained a transfer of the same buses from Balasubramania, applied to have the permits transferred in his name. On 3rd October 1944 he also instituted a suit in the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, to establish his title to the buses against Raman and Raman Ltd., and that was decreed in his favour on 2nd May 1946. Raman and Raman Ltd., appealed against this decision to the Madras High Court, which by its judgment dated 2nd September 1949, reversed the decree of the Sub-Court, and held that it was entitled to the buses. While these proceedings were going on, the transport authorities suspended on 28th March 1944 the permits which had been granted to Balasubramaia and instead, they were issuing temporary-permits from time to time to Veerappa, who had been appointed receiver in the suit in the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. On 29th March 1949 the Government decided to discontinue the policy of granting temporary permits indefinitely, and accordingly granted permanent permits to Veerappa. Then on 14th October 1949 Veerappa applied for renewal of these permanent permits, and that was granted by the Regional Transport Authority on 3rd January 1950. The question was whether this order was bad on the ground that it was inconsistent with the decision of the High Court that it was Ramon and Raman Ltd., that had obtained a valid title to the buses. This Court held that the ownership of the buses was only one of the factors to be taken into account in granting the permits, and that as the Regional Transport Authority granted the renewal on an appreciation of all the facts, his decision was not liable to be questioned in proceedings under Art. 226. It should be noted that the renewal which was granted on 3rd January 1950 was of permanent permits granted in pursuance of the order of the Government dated 29th March 1949, which had quite plainly declared as a matter of policy that notwithstanding the pendency of litigation between the parties, permanent permits should be granted to Veerappa. There can be no question of implying thereafter a condition that they were subject to the decision of the Court. Moreover, the renewal was granted on 3rd January 1950 after the litigation had ended on 2nd September 1949, and any attack on that order could only be by way of appeal against it, and that had been done. We are of opinion that the decision in 1952 S.C.R. 583: (A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 192) (E) is of no assistance to the appellant.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]Thus, there is no legal obstacle to implying a condition that the renewal should stand cancelled if the right of the appellant to the original permit was negatived by the High Court.Court.15. It is of the utmost importance in this connection to bear in mind that the appellant applied not for a fresh permit but for a renewal and in sanctioning it, the Regional Transport Authority expressly acted in exercise of his powers under R. 134-A read with S.58 of the Act, and if he did not expressly provide that it was subject to the decision of the High Court, it must be because he must have considered that that was implicit in the fact of its being only a renewal. That that is how the appellant understood it is clear beyond doubt from the proceedings taken by it immediately after the High Court pronounced its judgment.But it is argued for the appellant on the strength of the decision in VeerappaPillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd., 1952 S.C.R. 583: (A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 192)(E) that the mere knowledge on the part of the authorities that the rights of the parties were under litigation is not a sufficient ground to import a condition in the permit that it is subject to the result of that litigation, when in its terms it is unconditional. We do not read that decision as authority for any such broad contention. There, the question related to five permits, which had been originally granted to one Balasubramania Raman and Raman Ltd. obtained a transfer of the relative buses, and applied to the transport authorities for transfer of the permits to itself. Then Veerappa having subsequently obtained a transfer of the same buses from Balasubramania, applied to have the permits transferred in his name. On 3rd October 1944 he also instituted a suit in the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, to establish his title to the buses against Raman and Raman Ltd., and that was decreed in his favour on 2nd May 1946. Raman and Raman Ltd., appealed against this decision to the Madras High Court, which by its judgment dated 2nd September 1949, reversed the decree of the Sub-Court, and held that it was entitled to the buses. While these proceedings were going on, the transport authorities suspended on 28th March 1944 the permits which had been granted to Balasubramaia and instead, they were issuing temporary-permits from time to time to Veerappa, who had been appointed receiver in the suit in the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. On 29th March 1949 the Government decided to discontinue the policy of granting temporary permits indefinitely, and accordingly granted permanent permits to Veerappa. Then on 14th October 1949 Veerappa applied for renewal of these permanent permits, and that was granted by the Regional Transport Authority on 3rd January 1950. The question was whether this order was bad on the ground that it was inconsistent with the decision of the High Court that it was Ramon and Raman Ltd., that had obtained a valid title to the buses. This Court held that the ownership of the buses was only one of the factors to be taken into account in granting the permits, and that as the Regional Transport Authority granted the renewal on an appreciation of all the facts, his decision was not liable to be questioned in proceedings under Art. 226. It should be noted that the renewal which was granted on 3rd January 1950 was of permanent permits granted in pursuance of the order of the Government dated 29th March 1949, which had quite plainly declared as a matter of policy that notwithstanding the pendency of litigation between the parties, permanent permits should be granted to Veerappa. There can be no question of implying thereafter a condition that they were subject to the decision of the Court. Moreover, the renewal was granted on 3rd January 1950 after the litigation had ended on 2nd September 1949, and any attack on that order could only be by way of appeal against it, and that had been done. We are of opinion that the decision in 1952 S.C.R. 583: (A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 192) (E) is of no assistance to the appellant.