The Hoshiarpur Azad Transporters (Private) Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........by the company through sardar kabal sing, general manager of the company. in order to appreciate the controversy; it is necessary to set out the facts in detail.2. this transport company had fifteen permits on thirteen routes and was plying twelve buses. sometime before the year 1956, disputes arose among the various share-holders of the company and they formed themselves into two warring groups, to be hereinafter referred to as group 'a' and group 'b'. the company on the 14th of february, 1956, entered into an internal arrangement whereby they divided the assets, two-fifth went to group 'a' and three-fifth to group 'b'. it is alleged by the petitioner that as group 'a' could not run the buses profitably, they sent a letter to the registrar of joint stock companies on the 9th of november, 1958, which letter the registrar forwarded to the regional transport authority, jullundur.on this the regional transport authority sent a notice to the managing director of group 'b' on the 15th of january, 1959, and in the agenda of the regional transport authority, a notice was given for a meeting regarding the formation of two unauthorised groups. in response to this notice, the parties.....

Judgment:

ORDER

D.K. Mahajan, J.

1. This is a writ petition directed against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated the 21st December, 1959, suspending the permits of group 'B' in the Hoshiarpur Azad Transporters (Private) Ltd., Hoshiarpur, for a period of two months. The petition has been filed by the Company through Sardar Kabal Sing, General Manager of the Company. In order to appreciate the controversy; it is necessary to set out the facts in detail.

2. This Transport Company had fifteen permits on thirteen routes and was plying twelve buses. Sometime before the year 1956, disputes arose among the various share-holders of the Company and they formed themselves into two warring groups, to be hereinafter referred to as group 'A' and group 'B'. The Company on the 14th of February, 1956, entered into an internal arrangement whereby they divided the assets, two-fifth went to group 'A' and three-fifth to group 'B'. It is alleged by the petitioner that as group 'A' could not run the buses profitably, they sent a letter to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies on the 9th of November, 1958, which letter the Registrar forwarded to the Regional Transport Authority, Jullundur.

On this the Regional Transport Authority sent a notice to the Managing Director of group 'B' on the 15th of January, 1959, and in the agenda of the Regional Transport Authority, a notice was given for a meeting regarding the formation of two unauthorised groups. In response to this notice, the parties appeared before the Regional Transport Authority on the 23rd of January, 1959. Attempts were made to arrive at a settlement. During the course of these negotiations it was decided at the instance of the Regional Transport Authority that the matter should be settled by arbitration and accordingly Sardar Darbara Singh was appointed an arbitrator. He made his award on the 16th of August, 1959.

There seems to be no written document, but the terms of the award are set out in paragraph 7 of the petition, and according to this award, a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- was to be given to the Secretary Regional Transport Authority for payment to group 'A' by group 'B'. This cheque was handed over to group 'A' on the 1st of October, 1959, through the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, and group 'A' was asked to comply with the terms of the award. The cheque was cashed on the 3rd of October, 1959.

Thereafter complaints were made to the Regional Transport Authority that the terms of the award were not being complied with by group 'A', These complaints were discussed in the two meetings of the Regional Transport Authority on the 9th of November, 1959, and the 24th of November,. 1959, when a resolution was passed. The relevant portion of the resolution is as under:-

'The cheque of Rs. 20,000/- should be givenby Shri Rura Ram to the Secretary Member on30-11-1959 in the office. It has been made clearthat if the cheque is not given on 30-11-1959, stepswill be taken for the suspension or cancellation ofthe permits.'

It seems that group 'B' refused to pay the cheque and was only willing to do so if the terms of the award were complied with. Thereafter in the meeting held on the 21st of December, 1959, the Regional Transport Authority suspended the permits of this Company for a period of two months and for that period gave 9 permits to group 'A' and 6 permits to the Punjab Roadways. It is not disputed that group 'A' has no buses. The nine permits Were later taken away from group 'A' on the 4th of February, 1960, and were given over to the Punjab Roadways. This order of the 21st of December, 1959, is the subject matter of this petition.

3. It may be mentioned that the parties to this petition are the Punjab State through Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Jagir Singh, Director, Hoshiarpur Azad Transporters (Pvt.) Ltd., and Punjab Roadways, Jullundur., The Regional Transport Authority has not been made a party.

4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the Regional Transport Authority has acted mala fide and on extraneous considerations. It was the refusal of group 'B' to part with Rs. 20,000/- before the 30th of November, 1959, that prompted this cancellation. This is further borne out by the fact that nine permits were given to group 'A'. If the allegations on which the permits were suspended were correct, namely, mismanagement and irregular services, then no permits would have been issued to group 'A',

5. On these facts which are not disputed by the learned counsel for the State, I have no doubt in my mind that the order of the 21st of December, 1959, is mala fide and is based on extraneous considerations. But this finding is of no help to the present petitioner because the Regional Transport Authority whose order is impugned is not a party to this petition. It will not be proper therefore to finally adjudicate upon this matter behind the back of the Regional Transport Authority. Without a final decision on the question of mala fides the petition cannot succeed. It would, therefore, fait on this short ground. There is no allegation of mala fides against the State.

6. For the reasons given above, this petition is dismissed with costs.