AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (9) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted reasonably as has been done by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The perspective is that what is fundamental is the right, not the restriction . Here , one Mudaliar. the appellant, owner a luxury coach, plied it for public benefit under a permit of 1971 for five years. The statutory criteria for grant of such permits is set out in S. 50 and renewals of permits must be governed by the same considerations, the procedure being regulated by S. 58. There is no grievance made that procedure violations are involved here. All that we know is that the permit was to expire in March 1976 and so a renewal application was made two months earlier. The State Transport Authority (for short, S.T.A.) rejected the request for renewal on the score that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d those particulars furnished by the S.T.A, could not also be said to be in anyway strange. As the authority is having these details readily available it was open to the authority, to rely upon those details before coming to conclusion bout the need for renewal as asked for by appellant. It is not therefore proper to comment on the details made available in para 2 of the order'. He obscurely encored, without any facts, that there would be 'unhealthy competition. What is truly occult is the casual dismissal of unanswerable factor: 'The appellant has stated in his affidavit that in as much as applications have been called for, for the grant of 100 tourist cabs, 15 omni buses and 10 omni tourist buses for the State of Tamil Nadu, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the refusal to renew the permit which, in my view, has been done on very valid and tenable reasons'. The whole issue has been made more fishy by the STA granting two contract carriage permits in 1978 after rejecting the renewal application holding there were already too many vehicles. Should the court interfere under Art. 136 ? ordinarily, no. But if' a small man, whose heavy investment in a tourist coach is to be sterilised altogether it is a social trauma; 'and if fundamental rights are disposed of as if by executive fiats, this Court must intervene to uphold the credibility hl the rule of law and prevent its derailment. The touch stone is not the little man and his little lis but the Large issue and the deep portent.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suming there are around 300 or 400 motor vehicles, how does one more become too many ? It is a preposterous proposition to say so, in the absence of some evidence. If there is no evidence to warrant such a conclusion. the right to the permit must prevail. Is there any evidence in this case ? The Authority asserts that the utilisation of existing vehicles is of the order of '90 to 100 per cent' during the tourist season. This indicates that at least during the tourist season one more tourist coach will be welcome to relieve congestion. The Authority further states that it is said .... "just 60 to 70 per cent" Is utilised during the other period. "It is said"-by whom, to whom, when, how, and was it put to the applicant ? All this i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the State Transport Authority should have granted one permit less to the ITDC, if its case of redundancy were true. For, the appellant had a current permit then Another circumstance effectively negating the story of super- numerary vehicles is the admitted fact that applications for more permits have been invited and some granted. And before us two orders granting permits for contract carriages since the impugned refusal have been filed. And yet Mudaliar goes to the wall, on a cavalier `no' to his application for renewal. Fair consideration of his claim has been denied to the appellant; his huge investment has gone to waste because of non-renewal. We see no relevant ground justifying the order; there is breach of natural justice;....