Case: Attar Singh and Others Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Agra and Others

by this Court was at page 7 of 1978 Vol. 1 of S.C.C. :"To our mind the problem does not present much difficulty. The applications filed by the appellants for grant of permits to them were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority in October, 1971. They were finally disposed of and permits were granted to them by the order of the Appellate Tribunal made on February 19, 1975. The consideration of the applications for grant of permits was no longer pending after the said order. What remained pending was a mere ministerial act to be performed by the Regional Transport Authority or by any delegate of that authority in accordance with Rule 44A of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940."In the instant case, as a result of the limited stay order passed by the High Court on May 20, 1971, the Regional Transport Authority itself granted the permits. The applications, therefore, stood disposed of and were not pending. What remained pending was the ministerial act of issuing the permit on the fulfilment of the conditions imposed in the order. There was no difference between the sanction of a permit and grant of a permit as was sought to be made out by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad. In our opinion, it was also a futile attempt on his part to show that in the judgment of this Court in Sharif Ahmads case it had been laid down that the applications stood disposed of because the conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority had been complied with before the notification dated September 24, 1975 came into force and even the stay order had been vacated in that case some time in June or July, 1975 prior to that notification. Nothing of the kind was said in that case to call out the alleged ratio. The two limbs of the decision are quite distinct and separate. When the order of grant was made by the Appellate Authority, the applications stood disposed of. Of course, for the purpose of seeing whether by a writ of Mandamus the Regional Transport Authority could be directed to issue the permit it had to be seen whether the conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority had been complied with in time. Similarly in this case the grant was complete and the applications stood disposed of finally by the Regional Transport Authority on May 1, 1973. Permits, however, could not be issued until the order of stay made by the High Court on May 20, 1971 was vacated. We do not think that the argument of Mr. A. K. Sen that the stay order made by the High Court in the earlier writ petition was merged in the stay order of the High Court made in Writ Petition 4158 of 1973 and since that writ petition was dismissed on February 7, 1975 the stay as a whole stood vacated on that date before coming into force of the notification dated September 24, 1975, is correct. In our opinion on a strict interpretation of the order of the Regional Transport Authority made on May 1, 1973 in pursuance of the earlier order of stay made by the High Court the issuance of the permit was made subject to the vacation of this order which was vacated only on September 29, 1975 - five day after the notification in question. But that makes no difference. As held in the earlier case, issuance of a permit was a ministerial act. The notification dated September 24, 1975 did not make the application for grant of permit pending only because of that. The change of the law brought about by the said notification or even later in the year 1976 by some Ordinance and Acts as discussed in Sharif Ahmads case did not make any difference. The appellants, if they complied with the conditions imposed by the Regional Transport Authority in its order dated May 1, 1973 within a month of the receipt of the High Court order vacating the earlier order of stay then permits had to be issued to them. The Regional Transport Authority could not refuse to issue the permits because of the notification dated September 24, 1975.6. Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad also tried to point out that a part of the route in question is not motorable. We are concerned with this matter in this appeal. Even on the basis of the report of the Regional Transport Authority dated August 31, 1977 submitted to this Court in pursuance of the order of this Court dated August 17, 1977 it would be found that a portion of the route is non-motorable only during the rainy season. We cannot, therefore, hold in this appeal that permit should not be issued on that account.7. After the conclusion of the hearing in this case we had asked the parties to file papers and/or affidavits in support of their rival contentions regarding the fulfilment of the conditions imposed by the Regional Transport Authority in its order dated May 1, 1973. Parties have accordingly done so. The position is not quite clear on the basis of the papers filed by the appellants. On behalf of the respondents, however, an affidavit has been filed to indicate that only Sadat Hussain, one of the appellants in this appeal, had complied with the conditions within time or before time. The other appellants had not. It is stated in this affidavit that the order of the High Court dated September 29, 1975 vacating the stay order dated May 20, 1971 was received in the office of the Regional Transport Authority on October 9, 1975. The conditions had to be fulfilled within a month thereof. But the affidavit shows that the other appellants had filed their affidavits required to be filed by them by the Regional Transport Authority in its order dated May 1, 1973 on various dates in December, 1975 and thus the conditions were not complied with in time. We leave this matter open to be looked into by the Regional Transport Authority.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]In the instant case, as a result of the limited stay order passed by the High Court on May 20, 1971, the Regional Transport Authority itself granted the permits. The applications, therefore, stood disposed of and were not pending. What remained pending was the ministerial act of issuing the permit on the fulfilment of the conditions imposed in the order. There was no difference between the sanction of a permit and grant of a permit as was sought to be made out by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad. In our opinion, it was also a futile attempt on his part to show that in the judgment of this Court in Sharif Ahmads case it had been laid down that the applications stood disposed of because the conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority had been complied with before the notification dated September 24, 1975 came into force and even the stay order had been vacated in that case some time in June or July, 1975 prior to that notification. Nothing of the kind was said in that case to call out the alleged ratio. The two limbs of the decision are quite distinct and separate. When the order of grant was made by the Appellate Authority, the applications stood disposed of. Of course, for the purpose of seeing whether by a writ of Mandamus the Regional Transport Authority could be directed to issue the permit it had to be seen whether the conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority had been complied with in time. Similarly in this case the grant was complete and the applications stood disposed of finally by the Regional Transport Authority on May 1, 1973. Permits, however, could not be issued until the order of stay made by the High Court on May 20, 1971 was vacated. We do not think that the argument of Mr. A. K. Sen that the stay order made by the High Court in the earlier writ petition was merged in the stay order of the High Court made in Writ Petition 4158 of 1973 and since that writ petition was dismissed on February 7, 1975 the stay as a whole stood vacated on that date before coming into force of the notification dated September 24, 1975, is correct. In our opinion on a strict interpretation of the order of the Regional Transport Authority made on May 1, 1973 in pursuance of the earlier order of stay made by the High Court the issuance of the permit was made subject to the vacation of this order which was vacated only on September 29, 1975five day after the notification in question. But that makes no difference. As held in the earlier case, issuance of a permit was a ministerial act. The notification dated September 24, 1975 did not make the application for grant of permit pending only because of that. The change of the law brought about by the said notification or even later in the year 1976 by some Ordinance and Acts as discussed in Sharif Ahmads case did not make any difference. The appellants, if they complied with the conditions imposed by the Regional Transport Authority in its order dated May 1, 1973 within a month of the receipt of the High Court order vacating the earlier order of stay then permits had to be issued to them. The Regional Transport Authority could not refuse to issue the permits because of the notification dated September 24, 1975.