Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
R. M. SUBBARAJ
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KODAIKANAL MOTOR UNION (P) LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1972
BENCH:
RAY, A.N.
BENCH:
RAY, A.N.
DUA, I.D.
MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN
CITATION:
1972 AIR 2266 1973 SCR (1)1105
CITATOR INFO :
R 1974 SC1117 (7)
ACT:
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras-In deciding
appeal in respect of competing claims for stage carriage
permits Tribunal taking into account directions in
Government Order-Tribunal’s decision is vitiated.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant and the respondent applied to the Regional
Transport Authority for the grant of six stage carriage
permits. The Authority directed the grant of one permit
each on two out of six routes to the respondent. The
appellant filed an appeal to the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal. Taking in to account inter alia Government Order
No.2265 dated 9th August, 1958 the Tribunal set aside the
grant of two permits to the respondent and directed the
grant of one permit to the appellant and the other to
another appellant before the Tribunal. The respondent filed
a writ petition in the High Court of Madras. The writ
petition was dismissed by the Single Judge but ’the
respondent’s appeal was allowed by the Division Bench on the
ground that the Government Order entered into the decision
of the Tribunal. In this Court it was urged on behalf of
the appellant that the Tribunal made reference to other
grounds for the grant of permit to the appellant and
therefore the order of the Tribunal could be sustained as
valid. The Government Order in question was itself struck
down by this Court as invalid in R. Lakshminarayanan’s case.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : It is manifest that the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal not only referred to the Government Order as
indicating the basis for giving preferencefor the grant
of permits but also applied the Government Order in
assessingthe competing claims of the contenders for
permits. Once it is foundthat a Tribunal which under
the statute had to deal with the applications for permits in
a judicial manner is directed by the Government to adopt any
specified method for assessing the merits of the applicants
and the Tribunal takes into consideration such direction of
the executive, the judicial determination by the Tribunal is
polluted. The High Court was right in directing that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
applications must be dealt with and. disposed of "outside
the ambit of the impugned Government Orders of their
constraining interference." [1107H]
R.Lakshminarayanan v. T. H. Vythilingam Pillai & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 1792 of 1966 decided on 27 August, 1969.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 1057 of 1967.
Appeal by certificate from the order dated August 11, 1964
of the Madras High Court in Writ No. 126 of 1963.
G. L. Sanghi, D. N. Misra, for the appellant.
M. K. Ramamurthy and Satroja Gopalakrishnan, for the res-
pondent.
1106
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment
dated 11 August, 1964 of the High Court of Madras reversing
the decision of the learned single Judge. The High Court
issued a writ quashing the order of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal. Madras and directed the Appellate
Tribunal to determine the question of grant of permit
"outside the ambit of the impugned Government Order No. 2265
dated 9 August, 1958".
The, appellant and the respondent applied to the Regional Trans
port Authority for the grant of six stage carriage
permits. ’The respondent alleged to have maximum
operational communication. The Regional Transport Authority
directed the grant of one permit each on two out of six
routes to the respondent.
The appellant filed an appeal to the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal
considered the ,appellant to be the only qualified medium
route operation. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal set
aside the grant of two permits to the respondent and
directed the grant of one to the appellant and the other to
another appellant before the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of
Madras. Among the various grounds on which the respondent
impeached the order of the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal it .,was said that the Tribunal overlooked the
superior claims of the appellant by treating the preference
mentioned in the Government Order as an absolute preference.
The learned Single Judge held that though the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal gave preference to the
appellant because he was a medium operator the Tribunal gave
certain additional reasons for the grant of permit to the
appellant. The learned Single Judge held that a mere
reference to the Government Order could not be "magnified
reasonably into a principal ground on the basis of which the
Tribunal reached the conclusion" in favour of the appellant.
The respondent took up the matter on appeal. The High Court
accepted the appeal. The reason given by the High Court was
that the Government Order entered into tile decision of the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal as a major factor in the
decision. It was observed that one of the substantial
grounds for the grant was that the respondent was the most
qualified medium route operator.
1107
The order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal specifi-
cally mentions the Government Order No. 2265 dated 9 August,
1958 and incorporates the same as a part of the speaking
order in the determination of the controversy. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Government direction was that preference will be given for
short routes to new entrants and for medium routes to
applicants with one. or more buses. The- State Transport
Appellate Tribunal referred to the fact that the
appellant was a four pen-nit holder and on that basis the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal gave the appellant one
mark and said that the appellant was the only qualified
medium route operator. The High Court quashed the order
of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal because the
Government Order entered into the decision of the
Tribunal.
Counsel for the appellant repeated the submission made
before the High Court that the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal made reference to other grounds for
the grant of permit to the appellant, and, therefore, the
order of the Appellate Tribunal could be sustained as valid.
This Court has in several decisions held that the
Regional Transport Authority discharges quasi judicial
function in dealing with application for permits and
evaluating the rival claims of the parties for the grant of
permit. Section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as
inserted by the Madras Amending Act 20 of 1948 confers
power on the State Government to issue orders and directions
to the State Transport Authority only in relation to
administrative functions. It is also held by this Court that
the decision of the Regional Transport Authority "must be
absolutely unfettered by any extraneous guidance by the
executive or administrative wing of the State".
The relevant Government Order No. 2265 dated 9
August,1958 was held invalid by this Court in R.
Lakshminarayanan. v.T. H. Vythilingam Pillai & Anr. (Civil
Appeal No. 1792 of 1966 decided on 27 August, 1969).
It is manifest that the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal not only referred to the Government Order as
indicating the basis for giving preference for the grant of
permits but also applied the Government Order in assessing
the competing claims of the contenders for permits.
Once it is found that a Tribual which under- the statute has
to deal with applications for permits in a judicial manner
is directed by the Government to adopt any specified method
for assessing the merits of the applicants and the Tribunal
takes into consideration such direction of the executives
the judicial determination by the Tribunal is polluted.
1108
The High Court was right in directing that the applications
must be dealt with and disposed of "outside the ambit of
the impugned Government Orders or their constraining
interference".
For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. There will be
no order as to costs.
G.C. Appeal dismissed
172 Sup. C.I./73 --2500 -30-1-74-GIPF
1