Judgment Case ID: 3255

Judgment:
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. Chandrasekharan(1). 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 s.47 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. P.B.R. 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]