KAMALAM (SMT.) K. versus PONNUSWAMY (R.) AND ORS.

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 12-01-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. SHINGAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-~-
521 
KAMALAM (SMT.) K. 
PONNUSWAMY (R.) AND ORS. 
January 12, 1978 
(P. N. SmNGHAL AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-ln an appeal u/A. 136, 
t/liJ 
Court 
will interfere only when there was any jurisdictional error or illegality or n1ate~ 
rial irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court. 
Out of fifteen applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the 
Rasipuram·Pallipalayam route, Salem District, the Regional Transport Autho· 
rity granted permit only to Respondent No. 1. In the several appeals filed by 
the unsuccessful applicants, the Transport Tribunal took the view that a person 
having the maximum sector qualification was to be preferred if he possessed 
the other necessary qualifications. It accordingly held that as "sector qualifica-
tion" was a vital factor, the qualifications of the competing applicants had to 
be considered only in that background. It allowed the appellant's appeal by 
its order dated January 5, 1976, on the ground that she had a superior claim 
for the grant of the permit because of her sector qualification on the unsenred 
portion of the route and dismissed the other appeals. The High Court allowed 
the revision petitions filed by the respondents u/s 64B of the Motor Vehicles 
Act, and ordered a "fresh consideration" of their claims along with that of the 
appellant, as it found that (a) aU of them had secured a total of eight 
marks each on the basis of their residence (or principal 
place of business) 
technical qualification, workshop facilities and viability of units (b) respondent 
Pachamuthu Udayar had more experience than the appe11ant and (c) that the 
Tribunal had not stated that in its opinion, why such experience should give way 
to the sector qualification. 
Dismissing the appeals by special leave, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
HELD: (1) The High Court was correct in relying on the decision of this 
Court in Ajantha Transport (P) Ltd., Coin1batore v. Mis T. V. K. Transport, 
E 
Pulampatti, Coimbatore Dist. [1975] 2 SCR 166. 
[523 A-DJ 
(2) On the facts of the instant case, there was no jurisdictional error or 
illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High 
Court u/s 64B of the Motor Vehicles Act, when it found that R. Pachamuthu 
Udayar's greater eXperience was ignored without any justification. [523 EJ 
K. Bala Subrahrnania Chetty v. N. M. Sambandan1oorthy Chetty [19751 
3 S.C.R. 91, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 688 & 689 
"()f 1976. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dt. 20th 
April 1976 of the Madras Hign Court in Civil Revn. 
Petitions Nos. 
389 & 647 of 1976. 
M. C. Bhandare and A. T. M. Sampath for the Appellant 8. 
M. Natesan, V. T. Gopal, K. Jayaram and K. Ram Kumar for Res-
pondent No. 1. 
Y. S. Chitale, M. M. L. Srivastava and S. Srinivasan for Respon-
dent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Conrt was delivered by 
SHINGHAL, J.-These two appeals by special leave are directed 
:against a common judgment of the Madras High Court dated April 20, 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1978) 2 S.C.R-
1976, in civil revision petitions which were filed by R. Porrnuswamy, 
R. Pachamuthu Udayar and N. Ramaswami. 
There were fifteen applicants for the grant of a stage carriage per-
mit on the Rasipuram-Pallipalayam route, in Salem district. The Re-
gional Transport Authority granted a permit to R. Ponnuswamy, and 
rejected the other applications by his order dated October 4, 1974. 
Several appeaJs were filed before the State Transport Appellate Tri-
bunal, Madras. The Tribunal took the view that a person having the 
maximum . sector qualification was to be preferred if he possessed the· 
other necessary qualifications. It accordingly held that as "sector qualifi-
cation" was a vital factor, the qualifications of the appellants had to be 
considered "only in that background". It allowed Smt. Kamalim's 
appeal by its judgment dated January 5, 1976, on the ground that she 
had a superior claim for the grant of the permit because of her sector 
qualification on the unserved portion of the route, and dismissed 
the 
other appeals. 
R. Ponnuswamy (to whom permit was granted by the Regional 
Transport Authority), R. Pachamuthu Udayar and M. Ramaswami felt 
aggrieved and filed revision petitions before the High Court under sec-
tion 64B of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 
As the High Court

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