JAGANNATHAM & BROS. versus SOWDAMBIGAI MOTOL\.S SERVICE

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 08-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
M•y 8. 
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
JAGANNAlHAM & BKOS. 
v. 
SOWDAMBIGAI MOTOl\.S SERVICE 
(K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL 
and J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles-Application for •tage carriage permit-
Regional Transport Authority granted permit-Grant sel aaid• 
by Transport Appellate Tribunal without giving reasons for 
preference-Vilidity of the order-Duty of Appellate '.l'ribunal-
.Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939). 
The appellant, as well as respondents I and 2 and others, 
had applied !or the grant of stage carriage permit. The Regio-
nal Transport Authority granted a permit to each of the two 
respondents. The appellallt aggrieved by this order preferred 
an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The 
Appellate Tribunal held that the appellant should be preferred 
to the Respondent No. i. Against this order the respondent 
No. I preferred a writ peution before the High Court. The 
High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the 
ground that the Appellate Tribunal dtd not state the reason for 
preferring the appellant to the Kespondent No. I. 
Held that the High Court was justified in setting aside the 
order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 
In fact the 
State Transport Appellate Tribunal did not determine the only 
question which required to be determined and that was why 
one operator should be preferred to another •. 
Raman & Raman Ltd.v. The State of Madra• [1959] Supp. 
2 S.C.R, 227, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. l 79 of 1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and 
order dated October 23, 1962 ot the Madras High 
Court in Writ Appeal No. 207 of 1962. 
B. Sen, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. 0. Mathur and 
Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REl'ORTS 
667 
A. V. ViBwanatha Sastri and R. 
Ganapathy 
Iyer, for respondent No. 1. 
A. V. V. Nair and P. Ram Reddy, for respon-
dent No. 2. 
' 
1963. May 8. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MUDHOLKAR J.-A single Judge 
of the 
Madras High Court set aside the order of the State 
Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. allowing the 
appellant company's appeal granting them a permit 
to ply a bus on route No. 5 in Erode Town. 
An 
appeal preferred against his decision by. the appellant 
company under cl. 15 of the Letters l'atent was 
dismissed in limine. Against that decision the appe-
lant has come up before this Court by special leave. 
The 
Regional 
Transport 
Authority, 
Coimba-
tore invited applications for the grant of · six 
permits 
for stage carriage 
buses for 
running 
Erode 
Town 
service. Un 
route 
No. 5 
two 
stage carriage buses were sought to be introduced. 
The appellant, as well as respondents 1 and 2 and 
some others, had applied for the grant of all the six 
permits, including two on route No. 5. 
'1 he Regio-
nal Transport Authority at its meeting held on 
March 16, 1961 considered the applications, granted 
four permits out of six to four existing operators and 
on route No. 5, which was a new route, it granted a 
permit to each of the two respondents. Aggrieved by 
this order the appellant preferred an appeal before 
the State 1 ransport Appellate Tribunal which held 
that the appellant should be preferred to the respon-
dent No. 1. The Tribunal thus did not interfere 
with the order of the Regional Transport Authority 
in so far as the permit granted to the respondent 
No. 2 was concerned but set aside its order granting 
a permit to the respondent No. 1. Against this order 
the respondent No. l 
preferred a writ petition 
1963 
la1annath & 811n . 
. .. 
SowJambit•i 
Mol•r S11fie1 
M•i/iolkttf /. 
!HS 
.,_.,h /JI Bm. 
v. 
Jdtoilllllbig.; 
Matar S11ftc1 
MrU/ilJlw I. 
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
before the High Court. That petition was heard by 
a single Judge of the High Court and, as already 
stated, the learned Judge set aside the order of the 
Tribunal in so far as the appellant was concerned. 
The ground on which the learned Judge set aside the 
order of the Tribunal was that the Tribunal did not 
state why the appellant should be preferred to the 
respondent No. l in the matter of being given a 
permit. The learned Judges who heard the Letters 
Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant observed, 
while dismissing the appeal : 
"The first respondent had this advantage, 
viz : that 
he was given the permit by the 
Regional • Transport 
Authority. Before that 
permit could be set aside it was the duty of th

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