1983 (5) TMI 265 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeals allowed, Chief Justice's order set aside. Petitioner's application remitted for joint consideration. Fair treatment emphasized.

The appeals were allowed, setting aside the Chief Justice's order. The petitioner's application was remitted to the State Transport Authority for joint ... - Issues Involved:1. Alternative remedy under Section 64 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Existence and enforceability of the inter-State agreement covering the route at Entry 153.3. Clubbing and consideration of multiple applications for the same or substantially the same route.4. Form of relief granted by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Alternative Remedy under Section 64 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act:The appellants contended that the petitioner should not have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the existence of an equally efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 64 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that the refusal of the STA to consider the application of the petitioner constituted a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The High Court's discretion to entertain the writ petition was upheld, emphasizing that the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, especially where fundamental rights are affected or there is a failure to exercise jurisdiction.2. Existence and Enforceability of the Inter-State Agreement Covering the Route at Entry 153:The STA rejected the petitioner's application for additional trips on the basis that the inter-State route 'Bangalore to Dharmavaram' at Entry 153 was not included in the Gazette publication of Andhra Pradesh, thus not fulfilling the conditions under Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court found that there was no material to establish the existence of an inter-State agreement covering the route at Entry 153. The court held that the publication in the Karnataka Gazette alone was insufficient to establish the existence of such an agreement, and the mandatory requirements of publication by both states under Section 63 (3-B) were not met.3. Clubbing and Consideration of Multiple Applications for the Same or Substantially the Same Route:The court emphasized that all applications for the same or substantially the same route should be considered together to ensure fair treatment and compliance with the principles of natural justice. The STA's failure to club and consider the applications of the petitioner and respondents 6, 8, and 10 together was a violation of natural justice and specific directions issued by the court in a prior writ petition (W.P. 34927/82). The court held that the STA's decision to consider the petitioner's application in isolation was improper and directed that all applications be considered together.4. Form of Relief Granted by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:The appellants argued that the High Court should have remitted the matter to the STA for fresh consideration rather than granting the application for additional trips directly. The court acknowledged the wide powers under Article 226 but emphasized that the normal and conventional approach is to quash the impugned proceedings and remit the matter for fresh consideration by the authority. The court found that the learned Chief Justice's order granting the application without considering other pending applications was improper and resulted in a violation of the rights of respondents 6, 8, and 10.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the order of the learned Chief Justice dated 8-4-1983 was set aside. The application dated 14-1-1980 made by the petitioner before the STA was remitted to the STA for consideration and disposal along with the applications made by respondents 6, 8, and 10 and other similar applications in accordance with law. The court stayed the operation of its judgment for eight weeks to enable the petitioner to move the Supreme Court for special leave.