K. BALASUBRAMANIA CHETTY versus N. M. SAMBANDAMOORTHY CHETTY

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 20-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
K. BALASUBRAMANIA CHETTY 
v. 
N. M. SAMBANDAMOORTHY CHETTY 
December 20, 197 4 
9L 
[K. K. MATHEW, P. N. BHAGWAT! AND N. L lJNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Motor Ve/1icles Act. 1939-5. 64B-Crite)'ia for. a./lotting marks for grant of 
permit-Public illferest-Considerations for deciding-Extent df J11risdictio11· 
uf /he Hir;h Court 1111d.er S. 64B. 
The Regional Transport Authority granted a stage carriage permit to the 
respondent as against the appellant on the ground that the former was a 
single bus operator while the appelI:mt was an operator having four stage 
carriage permits, including a stage carriage permit which was recently granted 
to him. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, on the other hand, took the 
view that the respondent did not have a pucca fire proof building for workshop,. 
that it wa-s immaterial whether the sector experience of the appellant was 
derived under. a temporary permit or a permanent permit; that the appellant 
was entitled to two marks even though the experience gained by him was . 
by operation of temporary permits, that the history sheet of the appellant was 
dean without any adverse remark and that since a portion of the route fell 
within the interior roads it was desirable in public interest to · prefer "an 
experienced operator instead of single bus operator". The Appellate Tribunal, . 
therefore. found that the appelJant had superior qualifications and was entitled· 
to be preferred to others. 
On a revision a·pplication under s. 64.B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 
a single Judge of the High Court took the view that public interest required 
that in the socialist pattern of society monopoly should a'S far as possible be 
avoided and a smaller operator with one stage carriage permit should be 
preferred to a bigger operator having three or more stage carriage permits, 
that the ap·petlant was a recent grantee of stage carriage permit; that a proper 
standard of comparison of the history sheets of the appellant and the respon- · 
dent ha,d not been made; and that the respondent was entitled to two marks 
en account of sector experience, 
The order of the Regional Transport 
At~.'.hority granting permit to the respondent was. therefore, restored. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) The High Court was not right in refusing two marks to the 
appellant. 
Clause 3(C) of rule 155A provides that two marks shall b·~ awarded 
to the applicant, who. on the date of the co'!siderntion of the. applicali'?n by the 
Regional Transport Authority, has been plying a stage· carnage permit on the 
entire route. It do·~s not contain any restriction that in order to be entitled' 
to these two marks the applicant should have been plying on the route on the 
basis of a permanent permit. 
Wha·t is material is that the applicant should . 
have experienc·~ of plying on the rout~ and this experience would 
be 
there 
whether plying is done_ 01_1 a temporary permit or a permanent permit. 
[94G-H] 
( 2) The paramount consideration to be taken into account in ~eterminin.g 
as to which of the applicants should be selected for grant of permit always is 
public interest. [95 B-C] 
( 3) The mere fa.ct that an applicant has more than one permit or he is . 
a recent grantee cannot by itself be regarded as a fa~tor against him i~ the 
comparative scale. 
Possession of more than one 11er~1t als? ca!1not, by itself .. 
divorced from other circumstances, be regarded as a d1squaltficat1on. (96 F; HJ· 
Ajamha Transports (P) Ltd. v. T. V. K. Transports, [1975] 2 S:C:R. 
166,. 
followed. 
The High Court was in error in reje,~ting the Claim of the nppellant to· 
the grant of permit by mechanically relying on the circumstance that thee 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 3 S.C .. R. 
:appellant was a 111ulti bus operator having four stage carriage permits including 
a recent grant wtthout considering how in the light of the other. facts and 
circumstances, it was correlated to the question of publi: interest. The four 
sta.ge carriage permits which the appellant had were not on the same route 
and there was no question of any monopoly being created in his favou; ·if 
the permit appliei;I for by him was granted. The 
possession of more 
than 
one permit by the appellant was a circumstance in his favour because according 
to cl. 3 (F) of ru!,: J55A an app!kant operating more than four stage carriages 
would be entitled to one mark. 
[97B-DJ 
( 4) The High Court was in error in holding that the same standard was n

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