1998 (10) TMI 129 - HC - Indian Laws

Transport Permits Jurisdiction Clarified by High Court, Emphasizes Consistency and Fairness

The High Court held that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal lacks the authority to grant permits, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional ... Inconsistent judicial orders - judicial discipline - State Transport Appellate Tribunal's lack of power to grant or direct grant of permits - remedy of treating similarly situated parties alike - extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the ConstitutionState Transport Appellate Tribunal's lack of power to grant or direct grant of permits - State Transport Appellate Tribunal has no power to grant permits or to direct the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits; Tribunal may set aside and remit or allow the appeal but cannot itself grant permits. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the function of granting permits is vested in the Regional Transport Authority and that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal lacks power to grant permits or to direct the Authority to grant temporary permits. Consequently, while the Tribunal may in appropriate cases set aside the Authority's order and remit the matter for decision according to law or allow the appeal in toto, it cannot itself order the grant of temporary permits. This legal position was applied to the judgments in Exts. P5 and P6, noting that there was no challenge to those orders in the present petition and thus no interference was warranted on that ground. [Paras 1]Tribunal cannot grant or direct the grant of temporary permits; it may only set aside and remit or allow the appeal.Inconsistent judicial orders - judicial discipline - remedy of treating similarly situated parties alike - extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution - Where two inconsistent orders were passed by the Tribunal on the same day in substantially identical fact situations, the Court directed that the petitioner be given the same relief as the other applicant and ordered the Regional Transport Authority to issue a four months' temporary permit. - HELD THAT: - The Court emphasised the need for consistency in judicial decisions, noting that contradictory orders in the same factual matrix, rendered on the same day, amount to discriminatory treatment and undermine faith in the judicial system. Finding no material difference between the applicants or their routes, the Court held that the judicial officer erred in issuing inconsistent orders. To uphold consistency, and exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the Court directed the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, to treat both applicants alike and to issue a four months' temporary permit to the petitioner. The order was made without expressing any opinion on the merits and subject to the rights of third parties. [Paras 3, 4, 5]Petitioner entitled to the same treatment as the applicant in Ext. P6; Regional Transport Authority directed to grant a four months' temporary permit, without prejudice to third parties and without deciding merits.Final Conclusion: The Court held that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal cannot itself grant or direct the grant of permits and, on the ground of inconsistency in Tribunal orders in identical facts, directed the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, to issue a four months' temporary permit to the petitioner while reserving the rights of third parties and expressing no view on merits. Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the power of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to grant permits, consistency in judicial decisions, and the directive to the Regional Transport Authority to treat applicants equally.State Transport Appellate Tribunal's Power to Grant Permits: The High Court observed that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal does not have the authority to grant permits, as this function lies with the Regional Transport Authority. The Tribunal can either set aside an order and remit the matter to the Authority or allow the appeal entirely. In this case, since there was no challenge against the Tribunal's orders, the Court did not interfere with them.Consistency in Judicial Decisions: The Court noted that the Tribunal had issued contradictory orders on the same day in similar cases. It emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and consistency in rendering judgments. Inconsistencies in decisions can lead to complaints of discriminatory treatment, eroding public trust in the judicial system. The Court highlighted that while errors in legal decisions may occur, consistency is crucial even in such situations.Directive to Treat Applicants Equally: Due to the inconsistency in the Tribunal's orders, the Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to treat all applicants equally. It declared that the petitioner should receive similar treatment to another applicant in a related case. This directive was issued under the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court clarified that its decision did not prejudice any third parties and did not express an opinion on the merits of the case, but aimed to rectify the inconsistency in the Tribunal's orders.