1959 (2) TMI 34 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the Government Order: Executive or Statutory.
2. Misconstruction and Misapplication of the Government Order.
3. Error of Law Apparent on the Face of the Record Justifying a Writ of Certiorari.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Government Order: Executive or Statutory
The primary issue was whether the directions in the Government Order were executive or administrative orders, or if they were statutory rules with the force of law. The Supreme Court examined the Government Order issued under Section 43A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court noted that the Order was a result of a High Court decision urging the government to lay down principles for selecting applicants for stage carriage permits. The Order contained directions for screening applicants and a marking system to ensure efficiency and equality. However, the Court observed that the Order used discretionary language, such as "may be screened" and "may be followed," indicating that the directions were for guidance and not legally binding rules. The Court concluded that the Order was an executive instruction, not a statutory rule, and thus did not confer enforceable legal rights or obligations.

2. Misconstruction and Misapplication of the Government Order
The second issue was whether the relevant part of the rule dealing with the allotment of marks had been misconstrued and misapplied. The Appellate Tribunal had interpreted the Government Order based on a previous Supreme Court decision in R. Rama Reddiar v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which involved a similar marking system for permit applicants. The Tribunal held that the marks obtained under column 1 (building strength to viable units) could not be considered unless the marks under columns 2 to 5 were equal. The Supreme Court noted that even if the Tribunal had misinterpreted the Government Order, since the Order was an executive instruction, such misconstruction did not amount to an error of law that could justify a writ of certiorari.

3. Error of Law Apparent on the Face of the Record Justifying a Writ of Certiorari
The third issue was whether the alleged misconstruction of the Government Order constituted an error of law apparent on the face of the record, justifying the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court emphasized that executive orders do not confer legal enforceable rights and their breach does not justify a writ of certiorari. The Court reiterated that the directions in the Government Order were administrative instructions for the guidance of transport authorities and not statutory rules. Therefore, any alleged misconstruction of these directions could not be considered an error of law. The Court cited its previous decision in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, to support this view, stating that non-observance of executive instructions does not affect the validity of the authority's order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the Government Order contained executive instructions and not statutory rules. Consequently, any alleged breach or misconstruction of these instructions did not justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the administrative nature of the directions and the discretionary power of the transport authorities.