Case: K. M. Shanmugam Vs. The S. R. V. S. (P) Ltd. &amp; Ors

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Madras confirming that of a single Judge of that Court allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Art. 226 of the Constitution and quashing the order made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting a stage carnage permit to the appellant for the route Tanjore-Mannargudi via Vaduvoor.2. The facts relevant to the question raised may be briefly stated. The Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, called for applications in respect of the issuing of a stage carriage permit for the route Tanjore-Mannargudi via Vaduvoor. 11 persons applied for the permit. The Regional Transport Authority, adopting the marking system prescribed in G. O. Ms. No. 1298 (Home) dated April 28, 1956, awarded marks to different applicants: the appellant got the highest number of marks, viz., 7, and the first respondent got only 44 marks, with the result the appellant was preferred to the respondent and a permit was issued to him. It is not necessary to notice the marks secured by the other applicants before the Regional Transport Authority, for they are not before us. Total of the said marks secured by each of the said two parties was arrived at by adding the marks given under the following heads:Viable UnitWorkshopResidenceExperienceSpecial CircumstancesTOTAL12345K.M.S 411½¼7S.R.V.S.111 1would be seen from the said table of marks that if the 4 marks secured by the appellant under the first column "Viable Unit" were excluded from his total, he would have got only a total of 3 marks under the remaining heads and the first respondent would have got a total of 44 marks under the said heads. Under the said G.O., as interpreted by this Court, the marks under the first column i.e., those given under the head "Viable Unit", would be counted only if other things were equal; that is to say, if the total number of marks obtained by the said two applicants under Cols. 2 to 5 were equal. It is, therefore, obvious that on the marks given the Regional Transport Authority went wrong in issuing a permit in favour of the appellant, as he should not have taken into consideration the 4 marks given under the 1st Column since the total marks secured by him under Cols. 2 to 5 were less than those secured by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter called the Appellate Tribunal. The said Appellate Tribunal recast the marks in respect of the said two parties in the following manner:Viable UnitWorkshopResidenceExperienceSpecial CircumstancesTOTAL12345K.M.Swould be seen from the marks given by the Appellate Tribunal that the total of the marks secured by the appellant under Cols. 2 to 5 is equal to that secured by the first respondent under the said columns, each of them securing 4 marks. It was contended before the Appellate Tribunal that the first respondent was entitled to some mark under the column "Residence or place of business" on the ground that it had the places of business at Tanjore and Mannargudi and that the Regional Transport Authority had given one mark to the first respondent under, the said column; but the Appellate Tribunal rejected that contention on the ground that the first respondent had a branch office at Kumbakonam and therefore, the office at Tanjore or Mannargudi could not be treated as a branch office. Aggrieved by that order, the first respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for setting aside that order. Ramachandra Iyer, J. who heard the said application allowed it. The main reason given by the learned Judge for allowing the petition was that the Appellate Tribunal omitted to give any mark in respect of residential qualification, which amounted to refusal to take into consideration the admitted fact, namely, the existence of a workshop at Mannargudi and, therefore, it amounted to a breach of S. 47 (1) (a) and (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The same idea was expressed by the learned Judge in a different way thusin regard to residential qualification, it (the Appellate Tribunal) declined to consider whether the office workshop at Mannargudi is sufficient to entitle the petitioner to any marks under head (sic) for the mere reason that it was a branch of a branchheld that the said refusal was an error apparent on the face of the record; and he act accordingly quashed the order and at the same time indicated that the result was that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal would have to dispose of the appeal afresh. The Letters Patent appeal filed by the appellant was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Anantanarayanan and Venkatadri, JJ. The learned Judges dismissed the appeal and the reason of their decision is found in the followingessence, the Judgment really proceeds on the basis that with regard to the claim of the respondent to some valuation under Col. 3, arising from the existence of an alleged branch office at Mannargudi there has been no judicial disposal of thehe Tribunal is, of course, at liberty to adopt its own criteria for the valuation under Col. 2, provided they are consistently applied, and based upon somedismissing the appeal the learned Judgesdesire to make it clear that we are not in any way fettering the discretion of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to arrive at its own conclusion on the claims of the two parties irrespective of any observations that might have been incidentally made by this Court on thoseappellant has preferred the present appeal by special leave against the said order.Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant, raised before us the following points. (1) The High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash an order of a tribunal on the ground that there is an apparent error of fact on the face of the record, however gross it may be, and that, in the instant case, if there was an error, it was only one of fact; (2) this Court has held that directions given under S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act are only administrative in character and that an order made by a Tribunal in breach thereof does not confer a right on a party affected and, therefore, the Appellate Tribunals order made in derogation of the said directions could not be a subject-matter of a writ.

Reasoning:
In the result this Court allowed the appeal. This decision accepts two propositions, namely, (1) misconstruction or even disregard of the instructions, given by the Government does not confer a right upon an aggrieved party to file a writ, the said instructions are only administrative directions, and (2) the decision implies that if the Tribunal decides on irrelevant considerations, the Court can issue a writ. But in that case it came to the conclusion that no such irrelevant considerations weighed with the Tribunal.14. The last of the cases relied upon is that in Sankara Ayyer v. Narayanswami Naidu, Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1960 D/- 10-10-1960 (SC). There too, the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal considered the applications for the grant of a permit for a new route on the basis of the administrative directions given by the State Government. The Regional Transport Authority gave the appellant 3 marks on the basis that he was a small operator but the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that he was not entitled to any marks as a small operator. A single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that it misconstrued the directions contained in the Government Order relating to small operators. But a division Bench of that Court in Letters Patent appeal held, relying upon the earlier decision of this Court, that the said directions were only administrative in nature and that they did not confer any legal rights and in that view allowed the appeal. This Court again following the earlier decisions dismissed the appeal holding that by construing the administrative directions the Tribunal did not take irrelevant considerations in the matter of issue of permits. It is always a controversial question whether the issue of a permit to a small operator or to a big operator would be in the interest of the public and a Tribunal is certainly entitled to take either view.15. It will be seen from the aforesaid decisions that this Court only laid down that the instructions given under S. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act were only administrative directions and that the infringement of those instructions by the Tribunal did not confer any right on a party to apply to a High Court for a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In all those cases the Tribunal either ignored the instructions or misconstrued them, but nonetheless decided the question of issue of permits on considerations relevant under S. 47 of the Act. They are not authorities on the question whether a writ of certioraris would lie where a Tribunal had on an obviously wrong view of law refused to decide or wrongly decided on a consideration relevant under S. 47 of the Act, whether or not it was covered by the instructions given under S. 43A. For if on the basis of such an error of law, it refuses to decide a relevant question, the fact that the Government also issued instructions to the Tribunal to apply some objective standards in deciding such a question does not make the said question any the less a relevant consideration under S. 47 of the Act.16. That is the position in the present case. As we have already indicated on the basis of an error manifest on the record, namely, that a company cannot have a branch office on the "out in question, if it has another branch elsewhere, it refused to take into consideration a relevant fact namely, whether the respondent has an office on the said route. The High Court, therefore, was right in quashing the order of the Appellate Tribunal and giving an opportunity to the Tribunal to decide that question on merits.