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 Transport Authority. Emphasizing the need for consistency in judicial decisions, the Court highlighted the importance of avoiding contradictory orders to maintain public trust in the legal system. In response to the Tribunal's inconsistent rulings, the Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to treat all applicants equally, ensuring fair treatment and upholding judicial discipline. The Court's directive aimed to rectify the disparities in the Tribunal's decisions without prejudicing third parties or expressing a view on the case's 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.

---