B.RAJAGOPALA NAIDU versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 05-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
... 
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
• 
B. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU . 
v • . 
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS. 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J.,. K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH. 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR ANDS. M. S!KRI JJ.J 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), s. 43A (as inserted by 
Madras Amending Act 20 of 1948} Madras G.O. No. 1298, elated 
April 28, 1956-Government order prescribing the aware! of 
marks-If direction to Regional Transport Authority in the dis-
charge of its quasi-judicial function-Section 43A-Scope ·of-
if authorises only administrative directions. 
-
--, - ·-~~. 
The appellant is a bus operator in the State of Madras. On 
an invitation. for applications for the grant of two stage. carriage 
permits he submitted his applications along with many others. 
The State Transport Authority considered the merits of the ap-
plication a.warding marks in accordance with the principles 
prescribed by Madras G.O. No. 1298, dated April 28, 1956 issued 
under s. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act,,1939 inserted by the 
Madras Amending Act 20 of 1948. The Transport Authority on 
this basis granted the two permits to the appellant. Against this · 
crder a number of appeals were filed by some of the unsuccess-
ful 2pplicants including respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the pre-
sent apl""al. The Appellate Tribunal re-allotted marks in ac-
cordznce v.rith the above G.0.- and respondents 2 and 3 having 
secured the maximum number of marks were granted the per-
mits. On the rejection of a petition under Art. 226 of the Consti-
tution and after appealing without success to a Division Bench 
the appellant applied for a certificate to appeal to this Court 
wh'ch rejected. The present appeal was filed on special leave 
granted by this Court. 
' 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant.before this Court 
that since Madras G.O. No. 1298, dated April 28, 1956, purports 
to issue direction to the Transport Authority in the discharge 
of its quasi-judicial functions it is beyond the powers conferred 
by s. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act which authorises only the 
issue of directions to the said authority in the discharge of its 
administrative functions and therefore it is bad. 
Held, (i) Section 43A confers power on the State Government 
to issue orders and directions to the State Transport Authority 
only in relation to its administrative functions. 
M/s. Raman and Raman v. The State of Madras [1959] 2 
S.C.R. 227, relied on. 
_ 
(ii) It is well settled that ss. 47, 48, 57, 60, 64 and 64A deal 
with quasi-judicial functions and when the transport authorities 
are dealing with applications for permits and evaluating the 
respective claims of the parties, the transport authorities are 
discharging quasi-judicial functions and their orders are quasi-
judicial orders subject to the jurisdiction of the High ·court 
under Art. 226. 
· ·-
L/P(D) ISCI-1 
1964 
Marc;IJ 5" 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
1964 
New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v. Suwarna Transport Co. 
-
Ltd. [1957] S.C.R., 98, M/s Raman and Raman Ltd. v. State of 
B, R<1jaqopa/a Naidu Madras, [1959] 2 S.C.R. 227, B. Abdulla Rowtller v. Sta.te Trans-
State TV.:..nspvrt 
port Appellate Tribunal, Madras, A.LR. 1959, S.C. 896, relied 
Appellate Tribunal on. 
and Otlters 
(iii) In interpreting s. 43A it is legitimate to assume that the 
legislature intended to respect the basic and elementary postu-
late of the rule of law that in exercising their authority and dis-
charging their quasi-judicial functions, the tribunals constituted 
under the Act must be left absolutely free to deal with the mat-
ter according to their best judgement. It is of Jhe essence of 
fair and objective administration of law that the decision of 
judges or tribunals must be absolutely unfettered by any 
extraneous guidance by the executive or administrative wing 
of the State. 
(iv) The impugned order is outside the purview of· s. 43A 
inasmuch as it purports to give directions in respect of mat-
ters which have been entrusted to the tribunals constituted 
'411 
under the Act and which have to be dealt with by them in quasi-
judicial manner. 
(v) The decision of the appellate Tribl!nal is solely based 
on the provisions of the impugned order and since the said order 
is invalid, the decision is also bad. 
aVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 19 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
da,ted October 29, 1963, of the Madras 'High Court in Writ 
~
Appeal No. 214 of 1962. 
S. Mohan Kum

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.