Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal and Writ Petition in Stage Carriage Permit Case Due to Lack of Jurisdiction Over Pre-Merger Pondicherry Order. Quasi-Judicial Appellate Authority Not 'Under Control of Government of India' per Article 12, So Article 15 Inapplicable and Constitution Not Retrospective.

Civil appeal by special leave and writ petition under Article 32 challenging order of Chief Commissioner of Pondicherry as appellate authority under Motor Vehicles Act granting stage carriage permit to Perumal Padayatchi on ground of native of Pondicherry, alleged violation of Article 15.

Petitioner sought quashing of appellate order and permit grant, and enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32.

Petitioner, resident but not native of Pondicherry, was denied permit; appellate authority affirmed preference for native Perumal Padayatchi, which petitioner argued discriminated on ground of place of birth contrary to Article 15.

State Transport Authority granted permit to Perumal Padayatchi; Chief Commissioner dismissed petitioner's appeal on 9 September 1960; N. Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner held Article 136 not available for pre-merger Pondicherry and discussed Article 12 control.

Whether the appeal under Article 136 was maintainable when the order was passed by a tribunal in Pondicherry before it became part of India. Whether the writ petition under Article 32 read with Article 12 was maintainable against the Chief Commissioner acting as quasi-judicial appellate authority outside Indian territory but under the control of Government of India. Whether the subsequent inclusion of Pondicherry in India with effect from August 1962 conferred retrospective jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue a writ for the 1960 order. Whether the preference granted to a native of Pondicherry on ground of place of birth violated Article 15, and whether Article 15 applied to the appellate authority.

Petitioner contended that although special leave under Article 136 was not maintainable under Masthan Sahib, the writ petition under Article 32 was maintainable because Article 12 includes authorities under the control of Government of India, even if outside territory. Petitioner argued that Pondicherry having become part of India in August 1962, the Court could now issue a writ for the past order, and that preference based on place of birth violated Article 15. Respondents contended that at the relevant time Pondicherry was not within India and the Constitution did not apply, so neither Article 136 nor Article 32 was available. Respondents argued that a quasi-judicial authority cannot be under the control of Government of India because control means power to issue directions regarding how a matter may be decided, which is impermissible under rule of law. Respondents submitted that the Constitution is not retrospective, and subsequent inclusion of Pondicherry in India did not give jurisdiction for past acts.

Article 12's phrase 'under the control of the Government of India' qualifies 'authorities' and includes only those authorities over which the Government has power to issue directions. Quasi-judicial authorities, by the nature of their functions, cannot be under such control because the Government cannot direct them how to decide matters. Thus, a quasi-judicial appellate authority outside Indian territory was not 'State' under Article 12 at the relevant time, so Article 15 did not apply. The Constitution is not retrospective; inclusion of Pondicherry later did not give jurisdiction to issue writ for past orders.

The State Transport Authority considered various factors one of which was that Perumal Padayatchi was a native of Pondicherry and taking all the factors into account, the permit was granted to Perumal Padayatchi. The words 'under the control of the Government of India' qualify the word 'authorities' and not the word 'territory' and Art. 12 gives an inclusive definition of the word 'State'. In the very nature of things where rule of law prevails it is not open to a Government, be it the Government of India or the Government of a State, to direct a quasi-judicial or judicial authority to decide any particular matters before it in a particular manner. if no writ could be issued at the time when the order was passed for the reason that Pondicherry was not part of India at that time, no such writ could be issued in respect of past acts after Pondicherry had become part of India as that would be giving retrospective operation to the Constitution.

The State Transport Authority considered applications and granted permit to Perumal Padayatchi. Petitioner appealed to Chief Commissioner, who dismissed appeal on 9 September 1960. Petitioner filed special leave petition under Article 136 (Civil Appeal No. 569 of 1961) and writ petition under Article 32 (Writ Petition No. 347 of 1960) in Supreme Court. Appeals heard together. Pondicherry became part of India in August 1962 after the impugned order.

• Constitution of India: Articles 12, 15, 32, 136, 142, 144
• Motor Vehicles Act: