1956 (3) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Powers of the Government under section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act, 1948.
2. Limits of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Legality and propriety of the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority and the Central Road Traffic Board.
4. Validity of section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Extent of powers of revision by the State Government.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Powers of the Government under section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:

The primary issue was whether the State Government had the authority under section 64-A to interfere with the orders of subordinate Transport Authorities on the grounds of propriety. The State Government set aside the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and the Central Road Traffic Board, directing that permits for both routes be issued to respondent No. 2. The appellant contended that the State Government exceeded its jurisdiction as there was no illegality or irregularity in the orders of the subordinate authorities, and the propriety of an order does not necessarily mean it must be correct. The Supreme Court held that the State Government had the power to examine the legality, regularity, or propriety of the orders and to pass such orders as it deemed fit.

2. Limits of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India:

The appellant filed an application under article 226 for the issue of a writ of certiorari, which was initially granted by a single judge but later set aside on appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the functions of the Regional Transport Authority, the Central Road Traffic Board, and the State Government in granting or refusing permits were not judicial but quasi-judicial. The Court held that it was not open to a court exercising the power of certiorari to intervene merely because it might be of the opinion that the view taken by the State Government was erroneous. The satisfaction of the State Government regarding the propriety of the order was an expression of its opinion, not a determination of a fact upon which its jurisdiction depended.

3. Legality and propriety of the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority and the Central Road Traffic Board:

The Regional Transport Authority granted permits based on the experience of the appellant and respondent No. 2, which was approved by the Central Road Traffic Board. The State Government, however, found that respondent No. 2 had better facilities for operation and would serve the public better. The Supreme Court held that the State Government's decision was within its jurisdiction and could not be said to be improper. The interests of the public and the advantages of the service to be provided were overriding factors, and the State Government was entitled to make its own assessment of these factors.

4. Validity of section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act:

The appellant contended that section 64-A was an invalid provision. The Supreme Court dismissed this contention, holding that it was within the competence of the State Legislature to insert section 64-A into the Act. The provision was deemed reasonable and in keeping with the entire scheme of the Act concerning transport vehicles and control of road transport.

5. Extent of powers of revision by the State Government:

The appellant argued that the exercise of revisional powers could only be made in cases where the subordinate authority had taken a perverse view of the facts. The Supreme Court did not express an opinion on the extent of revisional powers in general but held that in this case, the State Government's order could not be interfered with by the issue of a writ of certiorari. The Court concluded that the State Government acted within its statutory authority and did not exceed its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the State Government acted within its jurisdiction under section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court also clarified the limits of judicial review under article 226, emphasizing that the State Government's decision on the propriety of an order was an expression of its opinion and not subject to interference by a court exercising certiorari powers. The validity of section 64-A was upheld, and the State Government's assessment of public interest and operational facilities was deemed proper. The appeal was dismissed with costs to be paid to respondent No. 2.