THIRUMALAI TRANSPORT SERVICE ETC.versusP. SAMIAPPA GOUNDER AND ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 55
- Decided
- 24 January 1997
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The order granting the permit without reasons under Rule 155‑A(6) is a nullity, and the High Court’s judgment declaring it so stands.
Summary
The dispute arose over a permit granted by the Regional Development Authority under Motor Vehicles Rules Rule 155‑A(6). The Madras High Court held that the order was a nullity because it failed to record any reasons, as mandated by the rule. The appellants challenged this finding, contending that the High Court erred in declaring the permit valid. The appellate court examined the record and found that no proceeding or order complying with Rule 155‑A(6) had been made, thereby confirming the High Court’s conclusion that the permit was void. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeals, noting that no writ could be issued against a proceeding declared a nullity.
Issues considered
- Whether the absence of recorded reasons for granting a permit under Motor Vehicles Rules Rule 155‑A(6) renders the order a nullity.
- Whether the High Court’s finding of nullity is legally correct and can be set aside.
- Whether any writ can be issued against a proceeding that has been declared a nullity.
Subjects
Judgment
A
v.
'
THIRUMALAI TRANSPORT SERVICE ETC.
P. SAMIAPPA GOUNDER AND ORS. ETC.
'f -
JANUARY 24, 1997
:
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Rules: -+
v,
Rule 155-A(6)--:Grant of pennif-Regimzal Development Authority to
give reasons-Absence of reasons in the order passed by the authority-High
c Court holding it a nullity and non-est-Held : There is no illegality in the
judgment of the High Court warranting interference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 476-477
of 1997 Etc.
D From the judgment and Order dated 28.6.96 of the Madras High ~.~
Court in W.A. Nos. 1048-49 of 1995.
Soli J. Sorabjee, V.C. Palanisamy and L.K. Pandey for the Appel-
lants.
E
Nand Kumar, V. Balaji, A.T.M. Sampath, A, Mariarputham and V.
Krishnamurthy for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
IN CA NOS. 476-477197@ SLP (C) NOS. 14713-14/96.
F
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
There was no order passed or action pursued in terms of Rule 155-
G A (6) of the Motor Vehicles Rules which envisages that the authority is
required to draw up the proceedings to consider the merits and demerits
of the applications and to give reasons for grant of the permit. The
).-._
Division Bench of the High Court has pointed out in the impugned
judgment 28th June, 1996 that since no reasons were recorded in the
H proceedings purported to have been held on 9th May, 1984, order dated
526
THIRUMALAI TRANSPORT SERVICE v. P.S. GOUNDE;R 527
August 1, 1984 passed by the Regional Development Authority the grant A
of permit was not valid and being a nullity it is 11011 est. The High Court
has observed as under:
"We have pointed out that records do not contain any proceedings
or any reasons except the order as notified which has already been
extracted. There is not disagreement between the parties regarding B
non-existence of the proceedings containing reasons for selecting
the first respondent and rejecting the other applications".
In view of the above finding all the contentions raised on the legality
of the Division Bench judgment, based thereon, per force do not arise.
Accordingly, we do not find from this perspective, any illegality in the
c
judgment passed by the Divisions Bench warranting interference.
As regards CA.No.478 of 1997 @ SLP (C) No.23207 of 1996, the
High Court has dismissed the writ petition holding .that the entire proceed-
ings is a nullity. Under those circumstances, no writ can issued as was D
sought for.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
G.N. Appeals are dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.