Civil Appeal No 98 of 1975
From the Judgment and order dated 25 7 1974 of the Madras High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No 519 of 1968
K section 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 Tamil Nadu
While its admission into this Court was by special leave the first round of the contest was fought before the RTA Regional Transport Authority which on an evaluation 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 103 respondent before us had better claims
The worsted appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 and 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 adjudicatory exercise of facts demolished the order of the STAT
The learned Judge disagreed with the conclusion of the STAT instead of sending the case back for a fresh look at the merits of the matter set aside the permit granted to the respondent 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 for and against such claimant was in excess of the jurisdiction of the Single Judge under article 226 although it noticed that certain factors not relevant to the adjudication had been taken into consideration by the STATE
Consequently the order of the learned Judge was set aside the result being that the respondent s permit was restored the appellant 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 respondent but after having heard both Shri K section Ramamurthy for the appellant and Shri M K Ramamurthy
for the respondent we are satisfied that the reluctant course of remitting the whole case to the STAT for a de novo disposal is called for as a matter of law and in the interests of justice The boundaries of the High Court s jurisdiction under article 226 are clearly and strongly built and cannot be breached without risking jurisprudential confusion Shri Rama Vilas Service P Ltd v C Chandrasekharan1
The power is supervisory in nature although the Judges at both the tiers in the instant case have unwittingly slipped into the subtle but fatal error of exercising a kind of appellate review
Shri M K Ramamurthy for the respondent was right in pointing out that the learned Single Judge went into the factum and weight of the claims which could be put in the scales in choosing the better of the two applicants for the permit
However the Court rightly pointed out that some relevant factors had been ignored by the STAT for example
that the first respondent s history sheet was not clean and included in the judicial verdict factors which were extraneous such as that the bus of the petitioner did not in fact ply from 2 9 65 to 4 12 65 this being attributable to non payment of surcharge rather than operational inefficiency
A reading of the learned Single Judge s judgment leaves us in no doubt that he had undertaken an evaluation of the merits on his own
This undoubtedly was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court
Nor is it possible to support the direction that if there were errors of law vitiating the STAT s finding the case need not to back for fresh consideration but could be finally decided by the High Court itself
In Writ Appeal the leaned Chief Justice speaking for the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the case in a short paragraph which hardly did justice to the order appealed against
May be that 104 order was wrong and unsustainable but while reversing it valid reasons had to be adduced
All that we find in the appellate judgment is a partial admission that extraneous considerations were inputs of the order of the STAT and a brief disposal of the whole matter in a single sentence as it were Even so there is nothing in the order of the Tribunal to support it
 While the Division Bench was perhaps justified in
Observing that while sitting on the writ side judicial review should have been more restricted that while sitting on the appellate side its own judgment was vulnerable because of the plain finding that what was not pertinent was taken into consideration by the STAT
For instance The learned Chief Justice observed It is no doubt true that the non performance of service after the grant was made cannot go into the computation and the reference relating to night halt might will have been avoided in its discussion  The non performance of service  which is slightly obscure but we read it in the context as meaning the failure to ply the bus on the route is question subsequent to the grant of the permit
We express no opinion on the soundness of the observation but it is clear that the Division Bench itself has plainly accepted the position that what was not according to it relevant had gone into the reckoning when the STAT awarded the permit to the appellant
In this view this judgment cannot also be sustained
1 The fair course would therefore be to set aside the judgment under appeal and send the whole case back to the STAT to hear the case afresh consider relevant factors bearing upon public interest  as highlighted in s47 of the Motor Vehicles Act and dispose of the appeal before it in accordance with law guided by the decisions of this Court and untrammeled by any observations made either by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench
Currently the respondent is plying his bus on the route and we direct that the status quo be maintained and he will continue to operate on the route until the appeal is disposed of by the STAT
Of course the RTA passed its orders as early as 1966 November and is it thinks that public interest demands the need for an extra bus to ply on the route to cope with the traffic it will be open to the RTA to grant a permit pending disposal of the appeal to the present appellant
The fluctuating fortunes of the combatants for the permit have been such that it is appropriate to direct both parties to bear their costs throughout
PBR Case remanded


Summary:
The Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to the appellant but this decision was reversed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
In a petition under article 226 of the Constitution a single Judge of the High Court on an examination of the merits of the case reversed the view of the Stale Transport 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 of the single Judge under article 226
the Division Bench restored the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
On appeal to this Court remitting the case to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal  HELD The boundaries of the High Court s jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution are clearly and strongly built and cannot be breached without risking jurisprudential confusion
The power of the High Court under article 226 be supervisory in nature
103E Sri Rama Vilas Service P Ltd vs C Chandrasekharan  referred to
The single judge had undertaken an evaluation of the merits on his own which was beyond his jurisdiction
The Division Bench disposed of the case in a short paragraph which hardly did justice to the order appealed against
But while reversing the order appealed against valid reasons had to be adduced
While the Division Bench was justified in observing that sitting on the writ side judicial review should have been more restricted than while sitting on the appellate side its own judgment was vulnerable because of the plain finding that what was not pertinent was taken into consideration by the Appellate Tribunal
103G H 104A B