9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Interpretation and application of administrative directions under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Error apparent on the face of the record. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution: The appellant argued that the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 to quash a Tribunal's order on the ground of an apparent error of fact, however gross it may be. The Court referenced the scope of a writ of certiorari in common law, citing Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque, which laid down that certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction and when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction, such as violating the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is not limited to the circumstances under which the High Court of England can issue a writ of certiorari, but it did not express an opinion on this broader question as the appeal could be disposed of within the narrow limits of the English Court's jurisdiction. 2. Interpretation and application of administrative directions under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act: The appellant contended that the directions given under Section 43-A are administrative in character and that an order made by a Tribunal in breach thereof does not confer a right on a party affected. The Court referenced previous decisions, including M/s. Raman & Raman Ltd. v. The State of Madras, which held that directions under Section 43-A are administrative and not law regulating rights of parties. The Court reiterated that these directions are meant to guide the Regional Transport Authority in discharging its duties under Section 47 of the Act more satisfactorily and do not enlarge or restrict the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Court found that the Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record by ignoring the relevant consideration of the respondent's branch office at Mannargudi. 3. Error apparent on the face of the record: The Court discussed the concept of "error apparent on the face of the record," referencing multiple cases such as Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque, Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, and Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjun. The Court noted that an error of law apparent on the face of the record must be a manifest error, such as one based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In this case, the Appellate Tribunal's refusal to consider the respondent's branch office at Mannargudi due to the existence of another branch at Kumbakonam was deemed an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court correctly quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal and directed it to reconsider the matter. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record by not considering the respondent's branch office at Mannargudi. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 in cases of manifest errors of law.
|
