1974 (9) TMI 135 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Relevance of recent grant or possession of another permit in granting stage carriage permits.
2. Weight to be attached to the consideration of recent grants or possession of permits.
3. Validity of the High Court's judgment or order in the cases under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Relevance of Recent Grant or Possession of Another Permit

Civil Appeal No. 1402 of 1974:
The appellant, Ajantha Transports (P) Ltd., challenged the decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which preferred the claim of P.V.K Transports, a single permit-holder, over the appellant, who held three permits. The Tribunal justified its decision by stating that the appellant was a recent grantee and had more permits, which should favor the second appellant. The High Court upheld this decision, rejecting the appellant's revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Civil Appeal No. 2254 of 1969:
The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) rejected several applications for a stage carriage permit and preferred Kannon Motor Transport (P) Ltd., a local enterprise, over other applicants. The Tribunal supported this decision, emphasizing the local residence of the preferred party. The High Court remanded the case to the Tribunal, suggesting that the recent grant of permits should be considered relevant to public interest.

Civil Appeals Nos. 1481-83 of 1970:
The RTA initially granted a permit to Prabhu Transports (P) Ltd., but the Tribunal preferred Kannon Motor Transports (P) Ltd., considering it a local enterprise with a viable unit. The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order, stating that the recent grant of permits to the appellant should be reconsidered in light of public interest.

Issue 2: Weight to be Attached to Recent Grants or Possession of Permits

The Supreme Court emphasized that the relevance of recent grants or possession of permits must be assessed in conjunction with other facts and circumstances that connect it to public interest. The Court stated that a recent grant or possession of permits, by itself, cannot be deemed a qualification or disqualification unless it is shown to impact public interest. The weight attached to such considerations depends on the totality of circumstances viewed in a proper perspective.

Issue 3: Validity of the High Court's Judgment or Order

Civil Appeal No. 1402 of 1974:
The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had mechanically applied the considerations of recent grants and possession of multiple permits without correlating them to public interest. The Court held that the High Court should have interfered with the Tribunal's order, which was vitiated by material irregularity. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal and directed a reconsideration of the cases in light of the law.

Civil Appeal No. 2254 of 1969:
The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had only remanded the case to the Tribunal for reconsideration, emphasizing the relevance of public interest. The Court declined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution, stating that the Tribunal should dispose of the case in accordance with the clarified law.

Civil Appeals Nos. 1481-83 of 1970:
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision to remand the case for reconsideration by the Tribunal, highlighting the need for fair, reasonable, and impartial exercise of quasi-judicial powers. The Court found no grounds for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 1402 of 1974, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal, and directed a reconsideration of the cases. Civil Appeals No. 2254 of 1969 and Nos. 1481-83 of 1970 were dismissed with costs. The Court emphasized the importance of correlating considerations of recent grants and possession of permits to public interest and ensuring fair and impartial exercise of quasi-judicial powers.