AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Veeraswami, J.—The Petitioner, who was the grantee in the first instance having lost it on appeal by the first Respondent, seeks to quash the
Tribunal''s order directing permit to issue to the first Respondent. The Tribunal reversed the grant on the ground that the first Respondent is a local
enterpriser and has a longer sector coverage. Both the Petitioner and the first Respondent are private companies. The Petitioner has its registered
office at Perambalur, whereas the first Respondent''s registered office is at Tiruchirappalli. The first Respondent has also its principal place of
business at Tiruchirappalli and operates a single bus from that place for which it has a permit. In the circumstances normally the selection made by
the Tribunal may not call for interference.
But it seems to me that there is one circumstance, which, however, requires consideration. While dealing with the first Respondent''s local
enterprise, which is one of the two reasons that weighed against the Petitioner, the Tribunal stated:
A controversy was raised about the residence of directors of some of the companies which are parties in those appeals. In my opinion, residence
of directors cannot be equated with the residence of operators which are limited companies, as companies are distinct juristic entities apart from
their directors. Therefore, it is not necessary to decide where the different directors of the different companies who are parties to those appeals are
residing.
There is no doubt that residence or place of business of a particular Applicant on the route or at one of the termini will be a qualification. This
was pointed out by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 76 of 1959. But, when the point is considered with reference to a company, can it be said that
the residence of directors is to be ignored, and the place of the registered office of the company only be taken into account? It is true enough that a
company is a corporate body distinct and different from its directors. But residence or place of business in the context of motor transport should, in
my opinion, be viewed from that point of view of substance rather than of technicalities, and this approach will be more in consonance with public
interest. Supposing the registered office of a company is at Tiruchirappalli but the directors, who are in charge of the business, reside at Calcutta,
the directors cannot be as effective in running the business as directors, who may reside at Tiruchirappalli itself. From that point of view the
residence of directors is clearly a relevant matter, which should be taken into account while deciding whether a Applicant is a local enterprise.
Where the registered office of a company is at one place and the directors reside at a different place, both the circumstances will be relevant and
should be considered before reaching a conclusion as to whether it is a local enterprise in comparison with other Applicants.
Sri Mohan Kumaramangalam, learned Counsel for the first Respondent, contends that the Tribunal did not actually ignore or lose sight of the
fact that the directors of the first Respondent company were residing at Perambalur or not, but that it did not consider the matter on the view that
what mattered was only the registered place of the company and not the residence of directors. But I think this was a wrong view taken by the
Tribunal. It cannot be said what conclusion it would have come to on the question of local enterprise if it had taken into consideration the relevant
circumstance as to whether the first Respondent''s directors are residing away from Tiruchirappalli.
It follows, therefore, that the Tribunal''s order should be quashed and it is hereby quashed. The Tribunal will dispose of the appeal afresh
confining the contest only as between the Petitioner and the first Respondent. No costs.