R. M. Subbaraj v. Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd.

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.

The learned Single Judge held that though the State Transport 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 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- .-;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 '.1pcq~tqr

The order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal spedfi-cally 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 direc-tion 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, o and, therefore, the order of the Appellate Tribunal could be sus-

tained as valid.

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 Vehi-cles 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 admi-nistrative 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 con-tenders 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 judi-cial determination by the Tribunal is polluted. · ·

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 j 172 Sup. C.l./71 -z;OO-JO-l-74--GlPF.