P.SAMIAPPA Gounder,thirumalai Trasport Serviceprop. M/S P.S. vs P. Samiappa Gounder & ORS.THE Regional Transport Authority,p
- SCC(1997) 3 SCC 510
- Neutral1997 INSC 55
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 1029
- SCR[1997] 1 SCR 526
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial power under Rule 155-A(6) of the Motor Vehicles Rules is required to record reasons in the proceedings for its decision to grant or reject a permit application, and failure to do so renders the order a nullity. Where an administrative order purports to grant a permit but the record contains no proceedings and no reasons explaining the selection of one applicant over others, the order cannot be upheld as valid notwithstanding that the order itself may have been formally issued.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
PETITIONER: P.SAMIAPPA GOUNDER,THIRUMALAI TRASPORT SERVICEPROP. M/S P.S.
Vs.
RESPONDENT: P. SAMIAPPA GOUNDER & ORS.THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,P
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/1997
BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 478 OF 1997 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.23207 of 1996] O R D E R Nos.476-477/97 IN CA/@ slp (C) NOS.14713-14/96 Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. There was no order passed or action pursued in terms of Rule 155-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 proceedings purported to have been held on 9th May, 1984, order dated August 1, 1984 passed by the Regional Development Authority the grant of permkt was not valid and being a nullity it is non 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 no disagreement between the parties regarding 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 passed by the Division Bench warranting interference.
As regards C.A No 478 of 1997 @ SLP (C) No.23207 of 1996. the High Court has dismissed the writ petition holding that the entire proceedings is a nullity. Under those circumstances, no writ can be issued as was sought for. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free