RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. versus THE STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 256 · Decided: 15-03-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
March 15 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956) 
RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER. 
[VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. SINHA, 
JAFER IMAM and CHANDBASEKBABA AIYAB JJ.) 
Road Ttan•port-PoJi.,. of the Stat. ao,,.,.,.,,..,., to IOI and• 
orders of 3Uburdinat. authoriti•&-High Court's pow., to int.rfer• bv 
writ of CBTtiorari-Motor Vehicle• Act (IV of 1989), as amended by 
the Motor Vehicle• (Madras Amendment) Act (XX of 1948), •· 64·A 
-Oon•titulion of India, Art. 226. 
The appellant and respondent No. 2 along with others applied 
for stage-carriage permits for two routes and the Regional Transport 
Authority granted a permit for one route to the appellant and for 
the other route to the respondent No. 2. 
Both sppesled to the 
Central Road Traffic Board but the sppeals were dismissed. Neither 
the Regional Authority nor the Board recorded any finding as to 
which of them had the better facilities for transport operation or 
thst they were of equal merit. 
They applied to the Stste Govern-
ment under s. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 as amended 
by ·the Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act of 1948 and the 
State Government set aside the orders passed by the said subordi· 
nate authorities and issued permits for both the routes to the res· 
pondent No. 2 on the ground tbst he bad better facilities for opera· 
tion and would serve the public better. 
Against this order of the 
Stste Government the appellant moved the High Court for a writ of 
certiorari snd a single Judge issued the writ. 
On a Letters Patent 
appeal that decision was set aside. 
The appellant contended that 
the State Government had acted in excess uf its powers under s. 64-A 
of the Act in setting aside the orders of the subordinate authorities 
and that the seetion itself was invalid. 
Held, that the State Government was within its powers in pass-
ing the order it did and the appeal must be dismissed. 
That it was within the competence of the State Legislature to 
insert s. 64-A into the Act and its legality could not be questioned 
and the clear intention of the legislation was to empower the State 
Government to decide the legality, regularity or propriety of any 
orders passed by the subordinate authorities in the interest of the 
general public. 
· 
That the State Government was the final authority to decide 
which of the rival applicants had the better facilities for operation 
of the bus service and where it bad come to a decision in favonr of 
an applicant, its decision conld not be interfered with under Ari. 
226 of the Constitution merely because its view might be erroneous, 
( 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
257 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 1 of 1956. 
On appeal from the judgment and order dated 
the 2nd/21st day of September 1955 of the Madras 
High Court in vVrit Appeal No. 65 of 1955 arising out 
of the order dated the 5th day of May 1955 of the 
said High Court in Writ Petition No. 158 of 1955. 
G. S. Pathak, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopala-
krishan, for the appellant. 
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, B.K.B. 
Naidu and Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 2. 
1956. March 15. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
IMAM J.-This appeal comes before us on a certi-
ficate granted by the Madras High Court that the case 
was a fit one for appeal to this Court as it involved 
two important questions, n;i,mely, the powers of the 
Government under section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1939, as amended by the Motor Vehicles 
(Madras Amendment) Act, 1948 for the State of 
Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to inter-
fere with the orders of subordinate Transport Auth-
orities on the ground of propriety and the limits of 
judicial review which the courts have under article 
226 of the Constitution of India. 
The appellant and respondent No. 2 had applied 
for stage-carriage permits in the Mayuram Town Ser-
vice for routes Nos. I and 2. 
These applications, 
along with others, were considered by the Regional 
Transport Authority, Tanjore. 
By its order dated 
the 31st of M;ay, 1954, it granted a permit for route 
No. I to the appellant and for route No. 2 to respon-
dent No. 2. Both the appellant and respondent No. 2 
being dissatisfied appealed under section 64 of- the 
Act to the appropriate authority, the Central Road 
Traffic Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), 
but the appeals were dismissed by its order dated the 
18th of August, 1954. As section 64-A confer

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