Case: Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan &amp; Others

that this is an implied finding against the first respondent, but the complaint of the first respondent. is that it is made in utter disregard of his claim. So too, the Appellate Tribunal observed in its order disposing of the 18 appeals before it that the first respondent, who had secured the highest number of marks, including those in column 1 of the mark list, had his workshop and place of business en route at Cuddalore and not at either of the terminii of the route. This observation was also made in utter disregard of the claim made by the first respondent that he had a workshop at Chidambaram, one of the terminii of the route, and though the other applicants, except one, had not denied the said fact. The High Court, therefore, found on the material placed before it that the said Authority as well as the Tribunal had failed to consider the specific claim made by the first respondent in regard to his workshop at Chidambaram and, therefore, rightly set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal so that the Appellate Tribunal might consider the claim made by the first respondent. I do not see any flaw in the reasoning of the High Court. Nor can I say that it has exceeded its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. But, Mr. Setalvad contended that there was material before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal gave its finding on the basis of that material. He relied upon an extract from the report of the Regional Transport Authority, Souht Arcot, dated January 31, 1957. That was a report sent by the said Authority to the State Transport Authority. Against the name of the first respondent in column 4 under the heading "possession of workshop or repair or maintenance facilities and its location it is stated. "maintaining a workshop at per G. O. at Cuddalore. Again in the report sent by the State Transport Authority to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, against the name of the first respondent in column 8 under the heading "place of residence or principal place of business and the nearest distance the entry is "Cuddalore-on the route. This information given by the Transport Authority is presumably gathered from the earlier report of the Regional Transport Authority. Reliance is placed upon a letter dated January 10, 1957 written by the first respondent to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, in support of the contention that even the first respondent, though on July 11, 1956, he claimed to have had a workshop at Chidambaram, did not mention it therein. But a perusal of that letter shows that he did mention that he had the sector and terminal qualifications. Basing the argument on the said documents, it was contended that there was material on which the Appellate Tribunal could have come to the finding which it did, viz., that the first respondent had no workshop at either of the terminii of the route.29. Firstly, these documents were not expressly relied upon by the Tribunal for holding that the first respondent had no workshop at Chidambaram. Secondly, these documents were not relied upon by the appellant either before Srinivasan J. or before the Division Bench to the effect that the Appellate Tribunal gave a finding on the basis of the said material. Thirdly one of the said documents, viz., the letter of the first respondent, does not support the contention. The other two reports did not say that the first respondent had no workshop at Chidambaram. The officers who made the report did not make any enquiry as regards the fact whether the first respondent had a workshop at Chidambaram on the basis of the claim made by him. There is therefore, absolutely no evidence to controvert the first respondents claim and that is the reason why the appellant did not place the said documents before the High Court in support of his contention that there was material before the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for holding that the first respondent, had no workshop at Chidambaram. A perusal of the two orders shows that presumably in view of the innumerable applications, the specific claim of the first respondent was completely missed by the Transport Authority and the Appellate Tribunal. This is, therefore, a clear case of a finding made by the Tribunal without any evidence to support it and by ignoring a specific claim made before it. I am, therefore, of opinion that the High Court rightly set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal.30. The next question is whether this is a fit case for interference under Art. 136 of the Constitution in exercise of this Courts extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder. Srinivasan. J. and on appeal the Division Bench on the basis of the material placed and the concession made before them, came to the conclusion that the Appellate Tribunal had ignored the specific claim set up by the first respondent. The first respondent had secured the highest number of marks. His claim, if substantiated, would certainly tilt the balance in his favour. The material placed before us was not relied upon by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court gave a further opportunity to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the claim of the first respondent. Though the High Court quashed the order of the Tribunal, the observation in the judgment clearly shows that the Tribunal could reconsider the matter. Indeed, learned counsel for the first respondent conceded that fact. The appellant would have every opportunity to establish that the first respondent has no workshop at Chidambaram. Instead of following the straight course, he is trying to shut out further enquiry to arrive at the truth. In the circumstances I am of the view that this is not a case which calls for the exercise of this Courts extraordinary jurisdiction to set aside the order of the High Court.31. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of the first respondent.ORDER32.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]In our opinion, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each cases and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued orour opinion, it would have been better if the Division Bench had not expressed any opinion on this aspect of the matter, particularly when it came to the conclusion that the said matter was primarily for the decision of the Appellateour opinion, the said decision does not lend any assistance to Mr. Pathaks contention. In that case, this Court was satisfied that "the Tribunal made a clear error of law inasmuch as it held that in the case of the first respondent, as it had a brunch at Kumbakonam, its other branch at Mannargudi should be ignored. The judgment shows that this Court took the view that it was obviously an untenable proposition to hold that even if a company has a well equipped office on a route in respect of which a permit is applied for, it shall be ignored if the company has some other branch somewhere unconnected with that route, and it was observed that that was precisely what Appellate Tribunal had held and that, according to the Court, clearly was an error apparent on the face of the record. It is in that connection that this Court referred to the mandatory provisions of S. 47. We do not think that this decision can be legitimately pressed into service by Mr. Pathak in the present case. It is only after it is proved that respondent No 1 had a workshop at Chidambaram that any subsequent question about the interests of the public generally can possibly arise. If, as in the present case, the Appellate Tribunal has hold that respondent No. 1 did not own a workshop at Chidambaram, no consideration of public interests can arise at all, and it is with this question that the present writ proceedings are corcerned. We ought to add that the decision in the case of K. M. Shanmugam cannot justify a party whose application for permit has been rejected by the authorities under the Act, to move the High Court under Art. 226 and invite it to consider all questions of fact on the plea that the decision of the said questions of fact may assist him to invoke the provisions of S. 47. That clearly is not the effect of the saidthe circumstances of the present case, we do not see how considerations of justice can really arise. The Tribunals of fact have found that respondent No. 1 does not own a workshop at Chidambaram and having regard to the other relevant circumstances which the Tribunals have considered, the fact that he does not own a workshop at Chidambaram has ultimately proved decisive against respondent No. 1 and in favour of the appellant. If that be so a decision based on facts found by the Tribunal cannot be reopened on the plausible plea that a further enquiry should be made because that would be just. If findings of fact were allowed to be disturbed by High Courts in such writ proceedings, that may lead to an interminable search for correct findings and would virtually convert the High Courts into Appellate Courts competent to deal with questions of fact. That is why we think, in entertaining petitions for writs of certiorari, it is necessary to remember that findings of fact recorded by special Tribunals which have been clothed with jurisdiction to deal with them, should be treated as final between the parties, unless, of course, it is shown that the impugned finding is based on no evidence. Therefore, we do not think the plea made by Mr. Pathak that in the interests of justice we should refrain from setting aside the order under appeal, can be upheld.17. There is one more point to which reference must be made. It appears that in the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 he claimed that the orders passed by the Authority and the Appellate Tribunal should be set aside, and a rule was issued in terms of the prayer made in the said petition. Ultimately, the said rule has been made absolute. It is obvious that in the writ petition respondent No. 1 did not challenge the grant of the permit to the Provincial Transport (Pvt.) Ltd., but unfortunately, having regard to the prayer made by respondent No. 1 in his writ petition, the orders ultimately passed in the said proceedings may, if technically construed, mean that the orders of the Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal have been set aside and that clearly was not and could not have been the intention of the High Court in issuing the writ. It would, we think, be better if in issuing a writ on a writ petition and in making it absolute in case the writ petition succeeds, care is taken to drawn the order more accurately.Mr. Ranganadham Chetty who appears for respondents 2 and 3 has asked for his costs. We do not think this request can be accepted. It may be that in such proceedings, the Authority and the Appellate Tribunal are proper and necessary parties, but unless allegations are made against them which need a reply from them, it is not usual for the authorities to be represented by lawyers in Court. In ordinary cases, their position is like that of courts or other Tribunals against whose decisions writ proceedings are filed; they are not interested in the merits of the dispute in any sense, and so, their representation by lawyers in such proceedings in wholly unnecessary and even inappropriate. That is why we direct that respondents 2 and 3 should bear their own costs.