http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: K.   A. NATARAJAN ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.   NAINA MOHD. & ORS.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1970

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHELAT, J.M. MITTER, G.K. RAY, A.N. DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1971 AIR  431            1970 SCR  (3) 495  1970 SCC  (1) 473

ACT: Constitution   of  India,  1950,  Art.  136-Appeal   against interlocutory order-Practice of Supreme Court.

HEADNOTE: The Regional Transport Authority granted to the respondent a permit to operate a bus on a route.  The grant was set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by another applicant.  The order of the S.T.A. was quashed by a Single  Judge of the High Court in a writ petition filed  by the grantee from the R.T.A. When the matter went before  the Letters  Patent  Bench it was observed that since  only  the grantee  from  the  R.T.A. had a valid  permit  it  was  not possible  to  grant any permit to the appellant  before  the S.T.A. pending the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal  as only one operator could be allowed on the route. In  the petition for special leave to appeal to  this  Court under  Art.  136  against the interlocutory  order,  on  the question of the jurisdiction of the High Court to  recognise the grantee from the R.T.A. when his permit was cancelled by the S.T.A., HELD:     This  Court would not go into the matter  at  this stage because the appeal itself was pending before the  High Court and all that the Bench had done was to give effect  to the  order  of  the Single Judge  pending  disposal  of  the appeal. [497 A-B]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petitions for special leave to Appeal  (Civil)  Nos. 2430, 2431, 2436 to 2438,  2442  2443. 2445, 2446, 2472 and 2480 of 1969 and 3 of 1970. From  the orders dated December 8, 1969 of the  Madras  High Court  in Civil Misc.  Petitions Nos. 15375 of 1969 etc.  in Writ Appeals Nos. 519 of 1969 etc. K.   K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the  petitioner (in S.L.P. Nos. 2430, 2431 and 2438 of 1969).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

S.   Mohan  Kumaramangalam, M. K. Ramamurthi, G.  Ramaswamy, Shyamala  Pappu  and Vineet Kumar, for the  petitioners  (in S.L.P.    No. 2436 of 1969). M.   K. Ramamurthi, G. Ramaswamy, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet    Kumar,  for the petitioner (in S.L.P. No. 2437  of 1969). A.   S.  Nambiar, for the petitioner (in S.L.Ps. Nos.  2442, 2443 and 2472 of 1969). 496 M.   C.  Setalvad,  V. Subramanian and K. Jayaram,  for  the petitioner (in S.L.P. Nos. 2445, 2446 and 2480 of 1969 and 3 of 1970). Madan Mohan for respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. Nos. 2430, 2431, 2436, 2437, 2438, 2442, 2443 and 2472 of 1969). O.   C. Mathur, for respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. No. 2445  of 1969). R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. No. 2480 of   1969). K.  Thirumalai,  A. T. M. Sampath and E.  C.  Agrawala,  for respondent No. 1 (in S.L.P. No. 3 of 1970). The Order of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah,  C.J.  These are petitions for  special  leave against  the orders of the Division Bench of the High  Court of  Madras  by  which the High Court has  ordered  that  the permits  granted  by the Regional Transport  Authority  will operate  and not those which the State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal in appeal granted. The  facts may be stated, taking as a sample, Special  Leave Petition  No.  2430 of 1969.  The original  grantee  of  the permit by the Regional Transport Authority may be  described as  ’A’.  The date of the grant was November 20,  1966.   On appeal  by the respondent who may be described as  ’B’,  the State Transport Appellate Tribunal cancelled the grant  made to A by the Regional Transport Authority.  This was on  July 18,  1967.  A writ petition was thereupon filed by A and  it was allowed by the learned single Judge on November 4,  1969 and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal  was quashed.   When  the matter went before the  Letters  Patent Bench,  it was observed that in view of the fact  that  only the grantee of the Regional Transport Authority had a  valid permit, it was not possible to grant any permit to B who was recognised by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.   They followed  an earlier ruling of the court and restricted  the grant  pending disposal of the Letters Patent appeal to  the grantee  of the Regional Transport Authority who  alone  was permitted to operate on the route.  It appears that only one operator  could  be allowed on this route, because of  a  s. 47(3) determination. In  these  petitions for special leave which  are  ex  facie against  the orders made in interlocutory  proceedings,  the attempt  is to get the permits restored to B. It is  claimed that  this  involves  a question of  jurisdiction  and  that question  is  whether the High Court could recognise  A  the grantee of the Regional Transport Authority when his  permit had been cancelled by the State Transport Appellate 497 Tribunal.   We think that these are matters into which  this Court  cannot  be  invited  to go  under  Art.  136  of  the Constitution,  because the appeal itself is  pending  before the High Court -and what the High Court has done is to  give effect  to the order of the learned single Judge.  In  other words,  the Letters Patent Bench has not attempted  to  pass any  special order of its own staying the operation  of  the decision of the learned single Judge.  We think it would  be wrong for us to interfere at this stage.  It may be that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

question  may come up in some other form before us when  the appeals from the Letters Patent decision are brought  before this  Court.   If  and when this happens,  we  may  find  it convenient  to  express  our  opinion  on  the  question  of jurisdiction  of the High Court to go into such  matters  in appeal  or in original writ petitions.  Beyond this,  we  do not  wish to express any opinion, one way or the  other,  at this  stage.   We accordingly order the dismissal  of  these special  leave petitions, reserving to the  petitioners  the right to raise such questions as may legitimately be  raised when they choose to file appeals against the decision of the Letters  Patent  Bench.   Stay  granted  by  this  Court  is vacated. V.P.S.                             Special  Leave  Petitions dismissed. SupCI/70-2 498