http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: KAMALAM (SMT.) K.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PONNUSWAMY (R.) AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/01/1978

BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1978 AIR  349            1978 SCR  (2) 521  1978 SCC  (1) 171

ACT: Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-In an appeal u/A. 136, this   Court  will  interfere  only  when  there   was   any jurisdictional error or illegality or material  irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court.

HEADNOTE: Out  of  fifteen  applications  for the  grant  of  a  stage carriage  permit on the Rasipuram-Pallipalayam route,  Salem District,  the Regional Transport Authority  granted  permit only  to Respondent No. 1. In the several appeals  filed  by the unsuccessful applicants, the Transport Tribunal took the view  that a person having the maximum sector  qualification was  to  be preferred if he possessed  the  other  necessary qualifications.    It  accordingly  held  that  as   "sector qualification" was a vital factor, the qualifications of the competing  applicants  had to ’be considered  only  in  that background.  It allowed- the appellant’s appeal by its order dated January 5, 1976, on the ground that she had a superior claim  for  the grant of the permit because  of  her  sector qualification  on  the  unserved portion of  the  route  and dismissed  the  other appeals.  The High Court  allowed  the revision  petitions filed by the respondents u/s 64B of  the Motor  Vehicles Act and ordered a "fresh  consideration"  of their  claims along with that of the appellant, as it  found that (a) all of them had secured a total of eight marks each on  the  basis  of their residence (or  principal  place  of business)  technical qualification, workshop facilities  and viability of units (b) respondent Pachamuthu Udayar had more experience than the appellant and (c) that the Tribunal  had not  stated that in its opinion, why such experience  should give way to the sector qualification. Dismissing the appeals by special leave, the Court HELD  :  (1) The High Court was correct in  relying  on  the decision  of  this  Court in  Ajantha  Transport  (P)  Ltd., Coimbatore v. M/s T. V. K. Transport, Pulampatti, Coimbatore Dist. [1975] 2 SCR 166. [523 A-D] (2)On  the  facts  of  the  instant  case,  there  was  no jurisdictional error or illegality or material  irregularity in  the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High  Court  u/s 64B  of  the  Motor  Vehicles Act, when  it  found  that  R. Pachamuthu  Udayar’s greater experience was ignored  without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

any justification. [523 E] K.Bala Subrahmania Chetty v. N. M. Sambandamorthy  Chetty [1975] 3 S.C.R. 91, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 688 &  689 1976. Appeals  by  Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dt. 20th  April  1976 of the Madras High Court  in  Civil  Revn. Petitions Nos. 389 & 647 of 1976. M.   C. Bhandare and A. T. M. Sampath for the Appellant 8. M.   Natesan,  V. T. Gopal, K. Jayaram and K. Ram Kumar  for Respondent No. 1. Y.S.  Chitale, M. M. L. Srivastava and S. Srinivasan  for Respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL, J.-These two appeals by special leave are directed against  a  common judgment of the Madras High  Court  dated April 20, 522 1976,  in  civil revision petitions which were filed  by  R. Ponnuswami R.   Pachamuthu Udayar and N. Ramaswami. There  were  fifteen  applicants for the grant  of  a  stage carnage permit on the Rasipuram-Pallipalayam route, in Salem district.  The Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to R. Ponnuswamy, and rejected the other applications by his order  dated  October 4, 1974.  Several appeals  were  filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras.   The Tribunal  took  the view that a person  having  the  maximum sector qualification was to be preferred if he possessed the other necessary qualifications.  It accordingly held that as "sector    qualification"   was   a   vital   factor,    the qualifications  of  the appellants had to  be  considered  " only in that background".  It allowed Smt.  Kamalams  appeal by  its judgment dated January 5, 1976, on the  ground  that she had a superior claim for the grant of the permit because of  her sector qualification on the unserved portion of  the route, and dismissed the other appeals. R.Ponnuswamy (to whom permit was granted by the  Regional Transport Authority), R. Pachamuthu Udayar and M.  Ramaswami felt aggrieved and filed revision petitions before the  High Court   under  section  64B  of  the  Motor  Vehicles   Act, hereinafter  referred to as the Act.  As the High Court  has ordered  a  "fresh  consideration"  of  the  claims  of   R. Ponnuswamy, R. Pachamuthu Udayar and of Smt.  Kamalam by the Tribunal,  these  two  appeals  have  been  filed  by   Smt. Kamalam. We shall first deal with Civil Appeal No. 689 of 1976  which relates to R. Pachamuthu Udayar’s application for the  grant of  permit,  for if we find that the High Court’s  order  of remand  is justified in the facts and circumstances  of  his case,  it will not really be necessary to examine the  other appeal separately. We  find from the order of the Regional Transport  Authority that,  the parties before us secured a total of eight  marks each on the basis of their residence (or principal place  of business), technical qualification. workshop facilities  and viability  of  units.   The  Regional  Transport   Authority rejected  R. Pachamuthu Udayar’s application on  the  ground that  his performance was not satisfactory as he had  "given room for complaints." The State Transport Appellate Tribunal however  found  that there was no material to  justify  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

conclusion,  and did not give any weight to the  "so  called complaint against him" so as to justify the rejection of his claim  on that basis.  All the same, R. Pachamuthu  Udayar’s appeal  was dismissed on the ground that Smt.   Kamalam  bad "greater see for qualifications." When  the matter came up before the High Court in  revision, the  decision  of the Tribunal to give  preference  to  Smt. Kamalam merely on the basis of higher sector  qualification, was   examined   and,  while  doing  so,  the   High   Court categorically  arrived at the conclusion that R.  Pachamuthu Udayar’s claim that he bad far greater experience than  Smt. Kamalam  had  not been taken into consideration.   The  High Court  found that R. Pachamuthu Udayar had  more  experience than Smt- 523 Kamalam, and took note of the fact that the Tribunal had not stated that, in its opinion, such experience should give way to the section qualification.  While doing so the High Court took  into  consideration  the decision  of  this  Court  in Ajantha Transports (P) Ltd Coimbatore ,etc. v. M/s T. V.  K. Transports,  Pulampatti,  Coimbatore,  Distt.  etc.(1)  and, after  examining  the  revision petition  of  R.  Pachamuthu Udayar, it made the following observations,-               "The Tribunal should have without reference to               the  preferential claims of a person having  a               sector    qualification,    considered     the               qualifications   of  each  of  the   competing               claimants   and   if  it   finds   that   such               qualification are more or less equal than  the               sector qualification can be taken as a tilting               factor  to  select  the  person  having   that               qualification.   The  Tribunal  has,  in  this               case,  proceeded  to assume  that  the  person               having   sector  qualification  will  have   a               preferential  claim so it cannot be  taken  to               have    considered    properly    the    other               qualifications,  for its consideration was  on               the  basis  of the preferential claim  of  the               person having a sector qualification." It  was  for  that reason that the High  Court  allowed  the revision petitions of R. Ponnuswamy and R. Pachamuthu Udayar and ordered a "fresh consideration" of their claims and  the claim of Smt.  Kamalam in the light of its observations. Counsel  for  the appellant has not been able  to  urge  any satisfactory argument against the impugned order of the High Court.    He   no  doubt  invited  our   attention   to   K. Balasubramania  Chetty v. N. K.  Rambandamoorthy  Chetly.(2) but  he  was unable to show how, in view  of  the  aforesaid conclusion  of the High Court, it could be said  that  there was  any  jurisdictional  error or  illegality  or  material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court  under section 64 B of the Act when it had found  that R.  Pachamuthu  Udayar’s  greater  experience  was   ignored without any justification. As  we  find  no  merit in  the  appeals,  they  are  hereby dismissed with costs, one set. S. R.                        Appeals dismissed. (1) [1975] 2 S.C.R. l66. (2) [1975] 3 S.C.R. 91 524