Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court could quash the transport appellate order under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the Tribunal committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record by refusing to consider a relevant factor for grant of a stage carriage permit.
Analysis: The statutory scheme required the transport authority, while dealing with applications for stage carriage permits, to consider the public interest and other relevant matters under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Government directions under Section 43-A of the Act were administrative in character, but they could not be used to ignore a consideration which was itself relevant under Section 47. The Tribunal proceeded on an untenable view that if the applicant company had one branch office elsewhere, its branch office on the route in question could not be treated as a branch office at all. That approach was an obvious legal error and had the effect of refusing to consider a material factor relevant to the permit decision.
Conclusion: The High Court was justified in treating the Tribunal's approach as an error of law apparent on the face of the record and in quashing the order for fresh decision on the relevant issue.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ of certiorari may lie where an inferior tribunal, on an obvious error of law, refuses to consider or decides against a factor that is legally relevant to the statutory decision it is required to make.