1963 (12) TMI 50 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Upholds Tribunal's Decision on Stage Carriage Permit, Emphasizes Caution in High Court Jurisdiction Under Article 226.

Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. Versus C. Chandrasekaran and Ors.

Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. Versus C. Chandrasekaran and Ors. - AIR1965 SC 107 Issues Involved:1. Grant of stage carriage permit by the Regional Transport Authority.2. Challenge to the permit grant by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.3. Issuance of writ of certiorari by a single judge of the Madras High Court.4. Reversal of the single judge's order by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.5. Consideration of monopoly and public interest under Section 47(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act.6. Relevance of administrative directions under Section 43(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act.7. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Stage Carriage Permit by the Regional Transport Authority:The Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, called for applications for a stage carriage permit between Mannargudi and Nagapattinam. Four applicants, including the appellant, applied. The Authority assigned marks based on merits and granted the permit to the appellant, who received the highest marks.2. Challenge to the Permit Grant by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal:The three unsuccessful applicants challenged the Authority's decision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal reassessed the merits, assigned marks, and concluded that the appellant and another applicant, Raman & Raman (P) Ltd., were monopolists over different segments of the route. Consequently, it rejected their applications and granted the permit to respondent No. 1.3. Issuance of Writ of Certiorari by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court:The appellant filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court. Srinivasan J. found that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence, particularly the potential competition between the monopolist and near monopolist, and the presence of a parallel railway. He issued a writ of certiorari to correct the Tribunal's order.4. Reversal of the Single Judge's Order by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court:Respondent No. 1 appealed the single judge's decision. The Division Bench held that the Appellate Tribunal had considered relevant factors and that the single judge was not justified in issuing the writ of certiorari under Article 226. The Division Bench reversed the single judge's order and dismissed the writ petition.5. Consideration of Monopoly and Public Interest under Section 47(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act:The Supreme Court affirmed that the appropriate authorities must consider public interest under Section 47(1)(a) when granting permits. It is relevant to consider whether an applicant's monopoly could lead to neglecting public interest due to lack of competition. The Appellate Tribunal's consideration of the appellant's monopoly was deemed relevant and valid.6. Relevance of Administrative Directions under Section 43(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act:The appellant argued that the Appellate Tribunal erred by considering monopoly, a factor included in administrative directions under Section 43(a), which lack legal force. The Supreme Court clarified that the relevance of monopoly consideration is independent of its inclusion in administrative directions and is justified under Section 47(1)(a).7. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution:The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts should be cautious in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly in factual matters decided by quasi-judicial authorities. The High Court should not issue writs of certiorari merely because not all reasons are detailed in the judgment or because it would have reached a different conclusion.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found no justification for the criticism of the Appellate Tribunal's decision, which had considered all relevant factors, including the potential competition and the presence of a parallel railway. The Division Bench was correct in reversing the single judge's order. The appeal was dismissed with costs.