LexK. M. SHANMUGAM versus THE S. R. V. S. (P) LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I S.C.R..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
809
K. M. SHANMUGAM
v.
THE S. R. V. S. (P) LTD. & ORS.
(S. J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUllAR DAYAL,
and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Sta{Jt carriage p.rmit-Marlcing syl!tem-Error apjJare..i
on. the facto/the record-Motor Vehicle.! Act, 1939 (4 of 1939),
u. '43A, 47---Gonstitution of India Art. 226.
On applications for permits made to it the Regional
Transport Authority, applying the marking system prescribed
by the Government order issued under s. 43A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, granted the permit to the appellant.
On appeal
by the first respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
recast the marks but in doing so did not allot any muk to the
first respondent under the head of "residence or place of busi-
ness" and thereby treating the appellant and the first respon-
dent .as equal, gave the.appellant the· further advantage of four
marks under the head "viable unit''.
The first respondent
challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal before the High
Court under Art. 226 on the ground that the Appellate Tribu-
nal had failed to allot him any mark in respect of his admitted
' residential qualification and had thereby committed a breach
·of s. 47 (I) (a) and (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This
contention was accepted by the learned single Judge of the.
High Couu...who quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal
and directed it to proceed according to law. On appeal the
Division Bench confirmed the issue of the writ. On appeal by
special leave by the· appellant it was cont.ended in this C'.ourt
that the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari, as the error, if any, was one of fact and that the
directions issued by the Government under s. 43A of the Motor
Vehicles Act 'being only administrative in character, order
made in breach thereof did not give ri•e to an error of law which
could be the subject matter of a writ.
Hild, that the question whether or not there was such an
error .apparent' on the face of the record as to enable the High
Court to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution was one to
be determined· in each .case and no particular test can or need
be laid down as a general rule.
1963
1963
11.M. Sh41f11l1Jgam
v.
Tilt S.R V.S. (P)
Lid.
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
Bari Vi.ihnx Kamath v. Sytd Ahmad bhaqm, [1955]
1 S. C.R. 1104, Nag•ndra Nath Bora v. Commil•ioner of Hill•
Divwion and Appeal.,, h•am [1958] S. C.R. 1240,
Satya-
,.,,,.ayan v. Mallikarjun, [19601 I S. C.R. 890, Shri Ambica
MiU• Co. v. S. B. Bhatt, [1961] 3 S. C. R. 220, l'rovincial
TranJporl Servicu v. Stale lndu.<trial Court [1963] 3 S. C. R.
650, Ratul.: l'ya. v. Surat Municipality, A. I. R. 1953 Born. 133
and M/•. Ra•nan & Raman Ltd. v. The Swt• of .Madra•, [1959]
Supp. 2 S. C. R. 227, referred to.
Htld, further, that though the ,directions issued under
1. +3A ·of the Act were administrative, they were intended to
facilitate an objective, judgment of the con•ider&tion• laid down
ins. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act and if applyini; the direc-
tions to a given case result in the breach ofs. 47, namely,
ignoring a relevant con!idcration, it must give rise to a manifest
error of law and furnish a ground for interference under
Art. 226 of the Constitution.
M/•. lraman lk Raman Ltd. v. SI.alt of Madra. [1959]
Supp. 2 S. C. R. 227, Abdulla Rowthtr v. Stalt Tran.port
Appellate Tribunal, Madra., A. I. R. 1959 S. C. R. 896,
Ayya.mani Gounder v. M/•. Soudambigai Motor Service C. A.
No. 198 of 1962 decided on 17-9-62 and Sankara Ayyar v.
Marayana.wami Naidu, C. A. No. 213 of 1960 decided on
10-10-60, distinguished.
Crv1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
,
No. 697 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated March 21, 1962, of the Madras
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 154 of 1960.
B. Sen, Ravinder Narain, 0. C. Mathur and
J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
A. V.
Yiswanatha Sastri
and R. Gopala-
krishnan, for respondent I.
A. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam,
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
1963. February 6. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
811
SuBBA RA.o, J.-This appeal by special leave
is directed against the judgment of a division Bench
ofthe High Court of Judicature for Madras confir-
ming that a single Judge of that Court allowing
the petition filed by the respondent under Art. 226
of the constitution and quashing the order made by
theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.