Writ jurisdiction and transport permits: High Court cannot re-appraise merits, and defective decisions must be remitted for fresh consideration.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not permit a High Court to act as an appellate forum and re-assess comparative merits in a transport permit dispute. Where the statutory transport authority has relied on irrelevant considerations or omitted relevant public-interest factors under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the proper course is to set aside the defective decision and remit the matter for fresh adjudication. The authority on remand must decide the appeal independently, without being constrained by earlier observations, and only on legally relevant considerations. The note states that merits-based interference by the High Court was unsustainable and the dispute was sent back to the appellate transport authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, could re-appraise the merits of rival claims for a transport permit and finally decide the matter instead of remitting it for fresh consideration; and whether the dispute should be remanded to the appellate transport authority for decision afresh on relevant statutory factors.

Analysis: The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 does not permit the High Court to function as an appellate forum and undertake a full re-evaluation of comparative merits for grant of a permit. Where the authority below has taken into account extraneous considerations or ignored relevant factors bearing on public interest under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the proper course is not for the High Court to substitute its own assessment on the merits, but to set aside the defective decision and remit the matter for fresh disposal. The authority on remand must decide the appeal untrammelled by observations made earlier and guided only by legally relevant considerations.

Conclusion: The High Court's merits-based interference was not sustainable, and the matter had to be remitted to the transport appellate authority for fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the transport permit dispute was sent back for reconsideration by the statutory appellate authority, with existing operations maintained in the meantime.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot assume the role of an appellate authority in evaluating comparative merits for a permit dispute and must remit the matter where the statutory authority has acted on irrelevant considerations or omitted relevant ones.

---