M. NAINA MOHAMMED versus K. A. NATARAJAN & OTHERS

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 23-07-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
102 
M. NAINA MOHAMMED 
v. 
K. A. NATARAJAN & OTHERS 
July 23, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND 
S. M. FAzAL ALI, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of lndia, Art. 226--Jurisdiction of High Court-Scope of. 
The Regiona·l Transport Authority gran·ed a permit to the appellant but 
thi-; decision was reversed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In a 
petition under Art. 226 of the Cons itution a single Judge of the .High Court, 
on an examination of the merits of the case, reversed the view of the State 
1"ransport Appellate Tribunal. 
On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court 
held that a full scale reappraisal of the points was in excess of the jurisdiction 
C 
of the single Judge under Art. 226. 
The Divis:on Bench restored the order 
of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 
On appeal to this Court, remitting the case to the State Transport Appella'e 
Tribunal, 
HELD·. The boundaries of the High Cou.rt's jurisdiction under 1\rt. 226 of 
the ConstLution are clearly and strongly built and :::annot be biea<:hed without 
risking jurisprudential confusion. 
The power of the High Court under Art. 226 
D 
be supervisory in nature. [103E] 
5ti Rania Vik1s Sen•ice (P) Ltd, v. C. Chandrasekharan, [1964_1 5 S.C.R. 
869, referred to. 
The single judge had undertaken an evaluation of the merits on his o•.-vn: 
which was beyond his jurisdiction. The Division Bench disposed of the case in a 
shon paragraph Ylhich hardly did justice to the order appealed against. 
But 
while reversing the order appealed against valid reasons had to be adduced. 
E 
\\'hiii;: the Division Bench was justified in observing that, sitting on the \Vrit 
side, judicial review should h~ve been more restricted than while sitting on 
the appellate side, its own judgment was vulnerable because of the plain finding 
,. 
that \1ihat was not pertinent was taken into :::onsideration by the A()pellate 
Tribunal. [1030. H; 104A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION '. Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25-7-1974 of the Madras 
High Court of Judicature at Madms in Writ Appeal No. 519 of 196&. 
K. S. Ramamurthi and A. T. M. Sampath, for the appellant. 
M. K. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for respondent no. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-A spiral of reversals is the fate of this litigative 
battle between the appellant and the first respondent over a permit to 
ply a bus on the route between Madurai and Paramakkudi, m Tamil 
N adu. 
While its admission into this Court was by special leav~, the 
first round of the contest was fought before the RTA (Regional Tran_s-
port Authority) which, on an evalU'ation of the relative merits and 
demerits of the rivals. granted the permit to the present appellant, but 
this victory was short-lived because, at the second stage of the legal 
bout, the STAT (State Transport Appellate Tribunal) held that the 
G 
H 
-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M. NAINA V. K. A. NATARAJAN (Krishna lyer, /.) 
1()3 
rcsponde;1t before us had better claims. 
The worsted appdlant in-
voked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 aad the 
learned Single Judge, who heard the petition, re-judged the relevance 
and weight of the points, pro and con, and as a result of this adjudica-
tory exercise of facts, demolished the order of the STAT. 
Tc1c learned 
Judg" disagreed with the conclusion of the STAT instead ot sending 
the case back for a fresh look at the meri,s of the matter. set aside the 
permit granted to the respondC'at and affirmed the award in favour of 
the appellant. 
Thereupon, the respondent moved a Division Bench of 
that Court which felt that a full-scale re-appraisal of the points lor and 
against such cJoaimant was in excess of the jurisdiction of the Single 
Judge Jnder Art. 
226, although it noticed that certain factors 
not 
rcleva.it to the adjudication had been taken into consideration by the 
STAT. 
Consequently, the order of the learned Judge was ;ct aside, 
the result being that the respondent's permit was restored. 
The appe-
llant urged that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court 
was utterly wrong and somewhat casual, while that of the learned 
Single Judge was careful, elaborate and correct. 
Of course, this view 
of the matter was hotly controverted by counsel for the 1st respondenl 
but, niter haviag heard both Shri K. S. R>amamurthy, for the appellant, 
and Shri M. K Ramamurthy, for the respondent, we are satisfied tha

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