Case: Raman &amp; Raman Limited Vs. State of Madras &amp; Another

2. The appellant and respondent 2 had applied for stage-carriage permits in the Mayuram Town Service for routes Nos. 1 and 2. These applications, along with others, were considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore. By its order dated 31-5-1954, it granted a permit for route No. 1 to the appellant and for route No. 2 to respondent 2Both the appellant and respondent 2 being dissatisfied appealed under S. 64 of the Act to the appropriate authority, the Central Road Traffic Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), but the appeals were dismissed by its order dated 18-8-1954. As S. 64-A conferred upon the State Government certain powers, which have been described in the case as revisional powers, the appellant and respondent 2 filed representations thereunder before the state Government against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and the BoardThe State Government set aside the orders passed by the aforesaid authorities and directed that permits for both the routes Nos. 1 and 2 be issued to respondentThe ground upon which the Regional Authority granted the appellant and respondent 2 permits for routes Nos. 1 and 2 respectively was that they were experienced and were operating town buses at Kumbakonam. This opinion was approved by the Board which also thought that a certain amount of healthy competition was required in the Mayuram Town routes. It also considered that the Regional Transport Authority was within its rights in not considering the aspect of sector coverage by muffassil buses of the appellant and respondent 2It appears that respondent 2 was covering the entire route No. 1 and the appellant was covering a portion of route No.. The State Government in setting aside the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and the Board passed the following order :As between the claims of Sri Raman and Raman Ltd., and Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service, the Government consider that it will be in the interest of the public to grant both the permits to Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Poryar, since he has better facilities for operation and will be able to serve the public better. The Government of Madras therefore sets aside as improper the order of the Central Road Traffic Board No. R27792/A2/54 dated 18-8-1954 in so far as it confirms the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore granting one permit of route No. 1 to Sri Raman and Raman Ltd. And directs that the two permits in question be granted to Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Poryar.

Court's reasoning:
In the present case, there was no question of illegality or irregularity in the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and the Board. The only question was as to whether these orders were improper. The propriety of an order does not necessarily mean that it must be correct order. There must be something extraneous to the order itself which made it improper. Merely because the State Government took a different view of the facts to that of the authority or officer subordinate to it would not make the order of such authority or officer improperThe second stage, namely, the passing of an order as the State Government thought fit, could only be reached after a decision had been arrived at on the condition precedent conferring jurisdiction on the State Government to revise an order. The substantial ground upon which the State Government revised the order of the authority subordinate to it was that respondent 2 had better facilities for operation and would, therefore, be able to serve the public betterSuch a fact is collateral to the actual matter which the inferior tribunal has to try, and the determination of whether it exists or not is logically and in sequence prior to the determination of the actual question which the inferior tribunal has to try. In such a case, in certiorari proceedings, a court can enquire into the correctness of the decision of the inferior tribunal as to the collateral fact and may reverse, that decision if it appears to it, on the materials before it, to be erroneousThere may be tribunals, however, which by virtue to legislation constituting them, have the powers of determine finally the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of their jurisdiction depends. With respect to them, in such cases, their decision even if wrong on facts or law cannot be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In cases where the fact in question is a part of the very issue which the inferior tribunal has to enquire into, a court will not issue a writ of certiorari, although the inferior tribunal may have arrived at an erroneous conclusion with regard to itIn proceedings under Ss. 47, 64 and 64-A of the Act there is no determination of any individuals rights and from that point of view the function of these authorities may be regarded as executive or administrative. On the other hand, it may be said that a person has the fundamental right to carry on his business of plying buses and therefore has the right to have the statutory functions of these authorities properly exercised in which case they would be quasi-judicial functionsBy enacting S. 64-A, the legislature clearly intended that that should not be so and that the State Government should have the powers to intervene, if it was satisfied that the order in question was either illegal, irregular or improper. In clothing the State Government with such power the legislature clearly intended the State Government to decide the issue as to whether any order in question was illegal, irregular or improper. It would not be open to court exercising the power of certiorari to intervene merely because it might be of the opinion that the view taken by the State Government was erroneousIf the State Government was of the opinion that respondent 2 had better facilities for operation than the appellant and their service to the public would be more beneficial, it could not be said that the State Government was in error in thinking that the order of the Board confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority was improperAs between the appellant and respondent 2 neither the Regional Transport Authority nor the Board recorded a finding as to which of them had the better facilities for transport operation or that such facilities as existed between them were of equal merit. The State Government did not have therefore, the advantage of knowing, on the face of the orders of these authorities, what view they took of this matter. Even if it is assumed that their orders meant that the facilities for operation as between the appellant and respondent 2 were of equal merit, still the State Government was not in a position to know on what material this opinion was based or that it was a reasonable viewThe State Government had therefore acted in excess of its jurisdiction.It seems to us, that the order of the State Government as it stands, cannot be said to be in excess of its jurisdiction nor can it be said that in recording a finding that respondent 2 had the better facilities for operation and would serve the public better, it went beyond its powers, in the absence of a finding to the contrary by the authorities subordinate to it. The interests of the public and the advantages to it of the service to be provided were very, if not the most, important factors to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting or refusing to grant a permitIn the conflicting claims of the appellant and respondent 2 concerning the facilities available to them for operation of the bus service, the State Government was bound to decide, in the interests of the public generally, which of these had the better facilities. It was within the scope of its authority to decide this and a Court in certiorari proceedings ought not to interfere with that decision12. There is no error on the face of the record so far as the order of the State Government is concerned and reference to para 8 of the State Governments affidavit in the High Court does not establish any such thing. That paragraph was in answer to paras. 13 and 14 of the appellants affidavit and it set out the contentions of the State Government as to its powers. There is nothing in that paragraph to establish that in fact the State Government had declined to consider seniority or experience in the matter of selection.