1105
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. M. SUBBARAJ
#### _v._
KODAIKANAL MOTOR UNION (P) LTD.
_4ltf?llSt_ 29, 1972
•·
A
B
## c
0
E
F
[A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA AND.K. K. MATHEW, JJ.]
_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 Government to adopt any specified method for asseasing the merits of the appli
_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 respondent.
.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.cision 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· conununication. 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 that though the State Transport F
Appellate Tribunal gave preference to the · appellant because he
#### was a medium operator the Tribunal gave certain additional rea:sons for the grant of permit to the appellant. The learned Single
Judge held that a mere reference to the Government Order could
not be "magnified reasonably into a principal ground on the basis
of which the Tribunal reached the conclusion" in favour of the G
nppellant.
The respondent took up the matter on appeal. The High
Court accepted tl:te appeal. The reason given by the High Court
\vas that the Government Order entered into the decision of the
:S1a~e Transport Appellate Tribunal as a major .factor in .the deci- H
.-;ion. It was observed that (>ne of the substantial grounds for the
·grant was tlJa.t the respondent was the most qualified medium fl>Ute
'.1 pcq~tqr
## c
R. _M:_ SUBBARAJ _v._ KODAIKANAL MOTOR UNION _(Ray,_ J.) I I 07
The order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal spedfically mentions the· Government Order No. 2265 dated 9 August,
1958 and incorporates the sa1ile as a part of the speaking order
in the detennination of the controversy. The Government direction was that preference will be given for short routes to new
entrants and for medium routes to applicants with one or more
buses. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal referred to the
fact that the appellant was a four permit holder and on that basis
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal gave the appellant one
mark and said that the appellant was the only qualified medium
route operator. The High Court quashed the order of the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal because the Government Order
entered into the decision of the Tribunal.
Counsel for the appellant repeated the submission made before
the High Court that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal made
reference to other grounds for the grant of pernlit to the appellant,
- and, therefore, the order of the Appellate Tribunal could be sustained as valid.
'
#### '
E
F
G
H
This Court has in several decisions held that the Regional
Transport Authority discharges quasi judicial fonction in dealing
with application for permits and evaluating the rival claims of the
parties for the grant of permit. Section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as inserted by the Madras Amending Act 20 of
I 948 confers power on the State Government to issue orders and
directions to the State Transport Authority only in relatiou to
administrative functions. It is also held by this Court that the
decision of the Regional Transport Authority "must be absolutely
unfettered by any extraneous guidance by the executive or administrative wing of the State".
The relevant Government Order No. 2265 dated 9 August,
1958 was held invalid by this Court in _R._ _Lakshminaraya11a11_ v.
_T._ _H._ _Vythili11gam_ _Pillai_ & _A11r._ (Civil Appeal No. 1792 of
1966 decided on 27 August, 1969).
It is manifest that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal not
only referred to the Government Order as indicating the basis for
giving pref'-:rence for the grant of pernlits but also applied the
Government Order in assessing the competing claims of the contenders for permits. 'Once it is found that a Tribunal which under
the statu.te ~as to deal with applicatjons for permits in a judicial
manner 1s dtrected by the Government to adopt any specified
method for assessing the merits of the applicants and the Tribunal
takes into consinderation such direction of the executive. the judicial determination by the Tribunal is polluted. -
.\
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] l S.C.R.
The High Court was right in directing that tJ:te applications
must be dealt with and disposed of "outside the ambit of the
impugned Government Orders or their constraining interference"
For these reasons, the appeal is dis!f1issed. There will be no
### order '1' to costs.
G.C. _Appeal_ _dismissecL_
172 Sup. C.l./71 -z;OO-JO-l-74--GlPF.
·'
_j_
