http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: CUMBUM ROADWAYS (P) LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BALAGURU BUS SERVICE PVT. LTD. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/12/1976

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1563            1977 SCR  (2) 407  1977 SCC  (1) 440

ACT:            Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and Motor Vehicles Rules--Whether         consideration of grace, charity and compassion can be  taken         into  account  while granting permits- Whether  a  candidate         getting lesser marks can be preferred.

HEADNOTE:              The appellant and the respondent applied for a permit of         stage  carriages. The respondent secured higher  marks  than         the  appellant.  The Road Transport Authority preferred  the         appellant  on the compassionate ground that  the  respondent         already  had  another  permit on a route  which  was  partly         over-lapping  over the route in question.  On an appeal  the         Appellate  Tribunal  set aside the order  of  the  Transport         Authority and granted the permit to the respondent.         Dismissing the appeal,             HELD:  Permits  cannot be equated with  distribution  of         patronage.   Public interest is at stake when public  trans-         port  services are operated.  The scheme of the Motor  Vehi-         cles Act and the Rules is that he who can serve the  travel-         ling  public  best  is to be chosen  as  the  permit-holder.         Considerations   of   grace, charity and compassion  at  the         expense  of public interest are an act of unfairness to  the         Act.  [408B-C]

JUDGMENT:             CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Civil  Appeal  No.  424         1971.             Appeal  from the Judgment and Order dated the  22-2-1971         of Madras High Court in W.P. No. 3125 of 1970.         M.  Natesan, and (Mrs). S. Gopalakrishanan, for  the  Appel-         lant.             K.S. Ramamurthi, A. T.M. Sampath, M.M.L. Srivastava  and         E.C.Agarwala, for Respondent No. 1.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                      KRISHNA  IYER,  J.--This  appeal,  without  any         merit, deserves to be dismissed without much ado.             The few facts of the case are that the appellant and the         respondent, both operators Of stage carriages, applied for a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

       permit on an 86 Km. route.  Marks were awarded to both under         the  relevant Motor Vehicles Rules to settle their  compara-         tive  merit.  The appellant secured 8.79 marks and  the  re-         spondent 12.08.  The latter thus secured an easy  arithmeti-         cal  victory  over the former and the sense  of  the  scheme         would have ordinarily led to the award of the permit to  the         respondent.  However, the Road Transport Authority preferred         the  candidate  with the lesser marks on  the  compassionate         ground that the rival with the larger marks had already  got         a permit a couple of months before, on an overlapping  route         of 53 Km.  On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal set aside  this         award  and  granted         10--1546 SCI/76         408         the  permit  to the one who had more merit.  This  has  been         affirmed  throughout, repelling the challenge by writ  peti-         tion.   The  aggrieved appellant contends  that  his  permit         should  not have been set aside, the ground being  that  the         respondent had got an earlier permit on a part of the route.         We are not persuaded about this ground being good.             Permits  cannot be equated with distribution of  patron-         age.  We must remember that public interest is at stake when         public  transport services are operated.  The scheme of  the         statute,  viz.,  the Motor Vehicles Act is that he  who  can         serve  the  travelling public best, is to be chosen  as  the         permit holder.  Considerations of grace, charity and compas-         sion  at  the expense of  public  interest  are  an  act  of         unfairness  to the Act.  The conclusion, therefore  is  that         the appellant’s claim was rightly rejected and the  respond-         ent’s award was rightly made.         We  dismiss  the  appeal but in  the  circumstances  without         costs.         P.H.P.                                         Appeal   dis-         missed.         409