407
CUMBUM ROADWAYS (P) LTD.
v.
BALAGURU BUS SERVICE PVT. LTD. & ORS.
December 10, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND V. R. KrusHNA IYER, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and Motor Vehides Rules-Wheiher ,·onsidera-
tion of grace, charity and compassion can be taken into account while granting
permits-Whether a candidate getting lesser marks can be preferred.
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 res-
p0ndent 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 respcndent
Dismissing the appeal,
A
B
c
HELD : Permits cannot be equated with distribution of patronage. ·Public
interest is at stake when public transport services are operated. The scheme
D
of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules is that he who can serve the travelling
public best is t6 ·be chosen as the permit-holder.
Considerations
of
grace,
charity and compassion at the expense of public interest are an act of unfair-
ness to the Act. [ 408B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
197L
Q.vil Appeal No. ·424 of
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 Appellant.
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.-Thi's appeal, without any merit, deserves to
be dismissed without much ado.
E
F
The few facts of the case are that the appellant and the respoia-
dent, both operators of stage carriages, applied for a permit on an
G
86 Km. route.
Marks were awarded to both under the relevant
Motor Vehicles Rules to settle their compara,tive merit.
The ap-
pellant secured 8.79 marks and the respondent 12.08.
The latter
thus secured an easy arithmetical 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
prefurred the candidate with the lesser marks on the compassionate
H
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
A
B
c
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R.
the permit to the one who had more merit. This has been affirmed
throughout, repelling the challenge by writ petition.
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 patronage.
We
must remember that public interest is at stake when
public trans-
port 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 compassion 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 i1fie respondent's award
was rightly made.
We dismis's the appeal but in the circumstances without costs.
P.H.P.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex