Case: K. Balasubramania Chetty Vs. N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty

to passengers that a recent grant in his favour may be no obstacle in his way at all a recent grant could not, considered by itself and singly, be converted into a demerit". Similarly, possession of more than one permit also cannot by itself, divorced from other circumstances, be regarded as a disqualification. It may in a given case show that the applicant has already reached the viable unit of five stage carriages contemplated under clause (3) (F) of rule 155A or that the effect of granting permit to him would be to make him a monopolist on the route - a result disfavoured by the decision of this Court in Sri Rama Vilas Service 1P) Ltd. v. C. Chandrasekaran, (1964) 5 SCR 869 = (AIR 1365 SC 107) as being inconsistent with the interest of the general public - or, on the other hand, it may be a circumstance in his favour enabling him to achieve greater efficiency by moving towards the optimum of viable unit. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, in error in rejecting the claim of the appellant to the grant of permit by mechanically relying on the circumstance that the appellant was a multi bus operator having four stage carriage permits, including a recent grant, without considering how in the light of the other facts and circumstances, it was correlated to the question of public interest. There was nothing to show that this circumstance would have any prejudicial or adverse impact on public interest, if permits were granted to the appellant notwithstanding it. The four stage carriage permits which the appellant had were not on the same route and there was no question of any monopoly being created in his .favour if the permit applied for by him were granted. In fact possession of more than one permit by the appellant was a circumstance in his favour because according to clause (3) (F) of Rule 155A an applicant operating not more than four stage carriages would be entitled to one mark for each stage carriage in order to have a viable unit of five carriages. The guiding principle laid down in clause (3) (F) of Rule 155A proceeds on the hypothesis that an applicant would be able to achieve greater efficiency if he had a larger number of stage carriages, but it sets a limit of five stage carriages as it was thought that that would be sufficient to constitute a viable unit which could legitimately be permitted to an applicant, consistently with the requirement of a socialistic pattern of society that there should be distributive or social justice and no undue economic disparities. So long, therefore, as an applicant has not more than four stage carriages, it cannot by itself be regarded as a factor against him and, as pointed out by Beg, J., in the case cited above, the rule in clause (3) (F) of Rule 155A providing for giving of one mark to the applicant for each stage carriage operated by him should be taken into account unless there is good enough reason to depart from it. "Every additional stage carriage upto four would give an applicant an additional mark so as to help him to make up a viable unit of five". The State Transport Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, right, in the circumstances of the case, in not regarding possession of four stage carriage permits by the appellant, including a recent grant, as a circumstance against him, but treating it as a circumstance in his favour by adding four marks under clause (3) (F) of Rule 155A, and the learned Single Judge acted erroneously in upsetting this view taken by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal7. The learned Single Judge was also in error in holding that the same standard was not applied by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in comparing the history sheets of the appellant and the respondent.The history sheet of the appellant related only to his performance as stage carriage operator and the entire history sheet was before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and it showed that the appellant had a clean record. On the other hand, the respondent had two history sheets, one relating to his performance as stage carriage operator and the other relating: to his performance as lorry operator and both the history sheets showed adverse entries. It can hardly be disputed that this comparison with reference to the past performance of the appellant and the respondent was relevant to the question as to who between the two should be selected for grant of permit. It may be that the history sheet of the respondent as lorry operator related to a period of ten years while that of the appellant as a stage carriage operator covered a shorter period, but that cannot be helped. The comparison has to be made on the basis of the available material and if the history sheet of the respondent, which may be for a longer period, shows that the past performance of the respondent was not satisfactory while the history sheet of the appellant, though for a shorter period, shows that he has had a clean record of performance, that would certainly be a relevant circumstance to be taken into account. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal was plainly right in relying on this circumstance, amongst others, for the purpose of preferring the appellant to the respondent.8. Before we part with this case we may point out that the learned Single Judge overstepped the limits of his revisional jurisdiction and treated the revision application before him as if it were an appeal. That was clearly impermissible as the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 64B is as severely restricted as that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is only where there is a jurisdictional error or illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction that the High Court can interfere under Section 64B with an order made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]4. We will first dispose of the last two reasons which prevailed with the learned Single Judge in interfering with the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. So far as the claim of the respondent for two marks in respect of workshop under clause (3) (E) of Rule 155 A is concerned. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was in error in refusing that claim. The Regional Transport Officer under instructions from the Regional Transport Authority inspected the workshop of the respondent and found that it was in a pucca fire proof building and the respondent was accordingly entitled to two marks under clause (3) (E) of Rule 155A. But that would not make any difference because even with these two marks, the total number of marks of the respondent would not exceed 7.40 as against 9 marks of the appellant. Moreover, these 9 marks do not include two marks on account of sector experience under clause. (3) (C) of Rule 155A. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal gave two marks to the appellant on account of sector experience but the learned Single Judge took a different view. We do not think - the learned Judge was right in refusing two marks to the appellant on this-count. Clause (3) (C) of R. 155A provides that two marks shall be awarded to the applicant who on the date of consideration of the application by the Regional Transport Authority has been plying a stage carriage on the entire route. It does not contain any restriction that in order to be entitled to these two marks the applicant should have been plying on the route on the basis of a permanent permit. It is immaterial whether the applicant has been plying on the route on a temporary permit or a permanent permit. What is material is that the applicant should have experience of plying on the route and this experience would be there whether plying is done on a temporary permit or on a permanent permit. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to two marks on account of sector experience under clause (3) (C) of Rule 155A and that would raise his total number of marks to 11.The position, therefore, was that the appellant was entitled to 11 marks as against 7.40 of the respondent.5. But that by itself would not be determinative of the controversy. The paramount consideration to be taken into account in determining as to which of the applicants should be selected for grant of permit always is public interest. Section 47 (1) provides in so many words that the Regional Transport Authority - shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit have regard inter alia, "to the interest of the public generally, and this is a consideration which must necessarily outweigh all others. It is ultimately on the touchstone of public interest that selection of an applicant for grant of permit must be justified. Clause (3) of Rule 155A undoubtedly provides for giving of marks to the rival applicants but the number of marks obtained by each applicant can only provide a guiding principle for the grant of permit It can never override the consideration of public interest which must dominate the selection in all cases. In fact clause (4) of Rule 155A concedes that after the applicants are ranked according to the total marks obtained by them the applications shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 (1). The fact that the appellant had 11 marks as against 7.40 of the respondent would certainly be a factor in favour of the appellant, but notwithstanding his higher marks, if public interest so requires, he may have to yield place to the respondent in the matter of selection for grant of permit.The learned Single Judge was also in error in holding that the same standard was not applied by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in comparing the history sheets of the appellant and the respondent.The history sheet of the appellant related only to his performance as stage carriage operator and the entire history sheet was before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and it showed that the appellant had a clean record. On the other hand, the respondent had two history sheets, one relating to his performance as stage carriage operator and the other relating: to his performance as lorry operator and both the history sheets showed adverse entries. It can hardly be disputed that this comparison with reference to the past performance of the appellant and the respondent was relevant to the question as to who between the two should be selected for grant of permit. It may be that the history sheet of the respondent as lorry operator related to a period of ten years while that of the appellant as a stage carriage operator covered a shorter period, but that cannot be helped. The comparison has to be made on the basis of the available material and if the history sheet of the respondent, which may be for a longer period, shows that the past performance of the respondent was not satisfactory while the history sheet of the appellant, though for a shorter period, shows that he has had a clean record of performance, that would certainly be a relevant circumstance to be taken into account. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal was plainly right in relying on this circumstance, amongst others, for the purpose of preferring the appellant to the respondent.8. Before we part with this case we may point out that the learned Single Judge overstepped the limits of his revisional jurisdiction and treated the revision application before him as if it were an appeal. That was clearly impermissible as the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 64B is as severely restricted as that under Section 115 of theCode of Civil Procedure and it is only where there is a jurisdictional error or illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction that the High Court can interfere under Section 64B with an order made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.