Revisional power on propriety upheld where transport authority acted on relevant considerations and within statutory jurisdiction.

Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Government to revise subordinate transport orders on grounds of legality, regularity, or propriety, and "propriety" allows a broader review of competing administrative choices in the public interest. In stage carriage permit matters, the statutory authority's policy judgment will not be displaced merely because another view is possible. High Court interference under Article 226 is confined to cases involving irrelevant or extraneous considerations, mala fides, bias, or lack of jurisdiction. As the Government examined the record, gave reasons, and acted within its statutory remit, its revisional order was valid and was not liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Government's revisional power under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act could be exercised to set aside the appellate transport authority's order on the ground of propriety, and whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 where the Government's decision was based on considerations germane to the statutory enquiry.

Analysis: Section 64-A confers power on the Government to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of subordinate transport orders. While illegality and irregularity are familiar grounds of interference, propriety is a wider concept involving choice between competing administrative views. In matters of stage carriage permits, the authority must balance policy considerations in the public interest, and the Court will not substitute its own view for that of the statutory authority merely because another view is possible. Interference under Article 226 is justified only if the decision is vitiated by irrelevant or extraneous considerations, mala fides, bias, or want of jurisdiction. On the facts, the Government had examined the record, given reasons, and acted within the scope of the statutory power.

Conclusion: The Government's order was valid and the High Court ought not to have quashed it.

---