LexR. M. SUBBARAJ versus KODAIKANAL MOTOR UNION (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•· A B c 0 E F R. M. SUBBARAJ v. KODAIKANAL MOTOR UNION (P) LTD. 4ltf?llSt 29, 1972 [A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA AND.K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 1105 St41e Transport Aeppllate Tribunal, Madr~-ln deciding appeal in respect of competing claims for stage carriage permits Tribunal taking into 11cco1mt directions in GoH'l'llrlll'llt Order-Trib1111al's decision is vitiated. · Tbc appclhnt and the re~pondcnt applicu to the Regional Transport A.uthority for· the grant of six stage carriage f'Crmits. The Authority directed the grant of one pennit each on two out of six routes to the respoodcnt. The appellant filed an appeal to the State Transport A.ppcllate· Tribunal. Taking into account inter alia Government Order No. 2265 .dated 9th August,· 1958 the Tribunal. set aside the grant of two permits to the rc~pondent and directed the gr:uit of one permit to the appellant ;1ml the other lo another appellant before the Tribunal. The respondent filed a writ retition in the High Court of Madra-.;. The. writ petition was dismbscd by tho! Single Judge but tho respondent's appeal was allowed by rhc Divi~ion &nch 011 rhc ground that the Government Order entered into tht>· decision of the Tribunal. Jn th'is Court it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal made reference to other grounds for the grant of permit t.o the appellant and therefore the order of _the Tribunal coulJ be sustained as valid. The Government Order in qu~stion was itself struck down by this Court as invalid in R. Laksliminarayanan's case. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : It is manifest that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal not only referred to the Government Order as indicatinf the basis for giving preference for the arant of permits but also applied .. ~ Government Order in &MeMlna the competing clalms of the contenders for permits. Once it is found that a Tribunal which under the stature had to deal with the upplications for permits in a judicial manner is directed by the Govern- ment to adopt any specified method for asseasing the merits of the appli- cants and the Tribunal takes into consideration suC'h direction of the execu- 'tive, the judicial determinatio11 by the Tribunal is polluted. · The High Court was right in directing that the applications must be dealt with and disposed of "outside the ambit of the "impugned Government Orders of tb,eir constraining interference." [1107m R. Lakshminarnyanan v. T. H. VWTiillngam Pillai & Anr. (Civil Arpeal G . No. 1792 of 1966 de~ided on 27 August, 1969: C1v 1L APPELLATE JuRISDlCTION: C.A. No. 1057 of 1967. Appeal by certificate from the order dated August I 1. J 964 of the Madras High Court in Writ No. 126 of 1963. H. G. L. Sanghi, D. N. Misra, fm; the appellant. ·· 1- M. K. Ramamurtlly and Saroja Go11alakris/111a11, for the res- pondent. .1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973) 1 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J.,,, This appeal 1s by certificate from the judgment dated 11 August, 1964 of ~he High Court of Madras reversing the de.ci- sion of the learned S_ingle ~udge. The High Court issued a writ .quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, _Madras and directed ·the Appellate Ttjbunal to determine the ques- Jion of grant of permit "outside the ambit of the impugned Gov- .ernment Order No. 2265 dated 9 August, 1958". · The appellant and the respondent applied ·to the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of six stage carriage pemtlts. The respondent alleged to have maximum operational· conununi- cation. The Regional Transport Authority directed the grant of one pennit each on two out of six routes to the respondent. The appellant filed an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal considered the appellant to be the only qualffied medium route operation. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the grant of two pennits to the respondent and directed the grant of one to the appellant and the other to another appellant before the State Transport Appellate· Tribunal. The respondent filed a writ petition in ~he High Court of Madras. Among the various grounds on which the respondent impeached the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal it was said that the Tribunal overlooked the supcriQr claims ot the appellant by treating the preference mentioned in the Government -Order as an absolute preference. A B c D E The learned Single Judge held th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.