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