Case: Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman &amp; Raman Ltd. And Others

1. 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 13-4-51, quashing certain proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, and the Central Traffic Board, Madras dated 19-1-1950 and 3-3-1950 respectively, and an order of the first respondent (the State of Madras) dated 7-11-1950, and directing the issue of 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 originally by them and one T. D. 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 petitioners 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 permanent permits for bus Nos. M.D.O. 81, M.D.O. 230, M.D.O. 6, M.D.O. 7 and M.D.O. 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 displaying unusual assiduity and skill in their manoeuvres for position. But it is unnecessary to set 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 relevance 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 transferee on 10-3-1944 for transfer of ownership and of the G permits in the name of thedays later, Veerappa Pillai, proprietor of the Sri Sathi Vilas 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 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 datedTemporary permits for buses M.D.O. 920, 894, 918, M.S.C. 7632 and 7482 had been issued to Veerappa Pillai during the same month.Now we come to another chapter in the story. Balasubramania Pillai resiled from the joint application and repudiated it as having been got from him by fraud. The Secretary, Road Traffic Board, thereupon refused to transfer the ownership on the 19th March, 1944, and this order was confirmed by the Board onBalasubramania Pillai and Veerappa Pillai made a joint application on 10-4-1944 for transfer of the buses and the original permits in favour of Veerappa Pillai who had on the same date agreed to purchase theSecretary granted this application on the same date, Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd., took the matter before the Central Road Traffic Board and they made an order on 16-3-1944 upholding the issue of temporary permits to Veerappa Pillai for his buses M.D.O. 920, 894, 918, M.S.C. 7632 andBut setting aside the transfer 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 16-8-1944, the Central Road Traffic Board allowed on 27-11-1944 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, Kumbakonam, on 3-10-1944, 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 17-3-1945 and the five disputed buses were delivered to him on 26-4-1945. Two of the buses M.D.O. 6 and 7 were repaired by him and put on the route under his temporary permits. The suit was decreed in his favour on 2-5-1946. Later, he repaired the other three buses M.D.O. 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 18-9-1946.On the strength of the Sub-Court decree, Veerappa Pillai again applied for a permanent transfer of the Permits, and on 22-7-1946, the Central Road Traffic Board transferred 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 modified later and on 2-9-1946 the Regional Transport 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 underthe 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 30-6-1947, by the Regional Transport Authority to the following effectthe 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 29-3-1949. The order is in theseSathi Vilas Bus Service Porayar, Tanjore district, have been permitted by the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, to run their buses M.D.O. 6, 7, 81, 230 and 759 on the Kumbakonam-Karaikal route on temporary permits from 1944 pending the High Courts 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, Kumbakonam, in their favour about the permanent ownership of the buses. In the circumstances the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, is directed to grant permanent permits for the buses of Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Porayur, referred to above in lieu of the existing temporary permits.On the basis of this Government order. permanent permits were issued in favour of Verrappa Pillai on 18-4-1949. Getting to know of this last order, Messers, Raman and Raman Ltd., approached the Government of 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 intention also.The High Court reversed the decree of the Sub Court on 2-9-1949, 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 19-9-1949, they applied to the Govt. 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 datedIn their application to the Regional Transport Authority dated 23-11-1949 Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., asked for withdrawal of thethe meantime, that is on 14-10-1949, Veerappa Pillai applied for renewal of his permanent permits held for his own buses Nos.: M.D.O. 1357, 20, 1366, 1110, 1077, M.D.O. 1368 and M.S.C. 7632, 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 22-10-1949 a notification was issued inviting objections against the renewal and giving 30-11-1949 as the date of hearing. No objections were received and the Secretary renewed the permits for two years from 1-1-1950. This order was dated 3-1-1950. The Regional Transport authority dealing with the application of Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., dated 28-11-1949 resolved on 19-1-1950, that the permanent permits issued to Veerappa 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 theorder further statedthe 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 immediate 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 traffic.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 G. O., dated 7-11-1950.Thereupon Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., moved the High Court on 4-12-1950 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 Regional Transport Authority, the Central Road Traffic Board Madras and the State of Madras dated 19-1-1950, 3-3-1950 and 7-11-1950 respectively, and for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other such appropriate 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 Courts decree, the parties, the transport authorities vested with the power to issue permits, 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 this capacity as transferee and not in his individual right. To quote the learned Chiefconduct 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 applicant should not enjoy the fruits of hisfurther points out that the procedure laid down by the Motor Vehicles 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 unsatisfactory, 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 decree obtained by them at the hands of the High Court after much expenditure of time and money.

Reasoning:
Such writs as are referred to in Art. 226 are obviously 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 decisions impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to beremedies 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 Transport Authorities paying regard to all the facts and the surrounding circumstances.