1956 (9) TMI 77 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of a stage carriage permit.
2. Validity of the Government's stay order.
3. Allegations of mala fides and bias.
4. Judicial review of administrative decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of a Stage Carriage Permit:
The case revolves around the grant of a stage carriage permit for a bus to ply on the route from Kollegal to Saggiam in Coimbatore District. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) initially granted the permit to the appellant, citing that the respondent had no direct interest in the line and that his headquarters were 69 miles away from Kollegal. The RTA found the appellant suitable as he had direct connections with Kollegal and had a good history sheet. However, the Government later set aside this decision and granted the permit to the respondent, stating that the appellant's transfer of permits indicated an inability to maintain efficient service, which was not in the public interest.

2. Validity of the Government's Stay Order:
The Government stayed the operation of the RTA's order at the instance of the respondent. The Central Road Traffic Board confirmed the RTA's order, but the Government again stayed the operation and directed the RTA to consider granting a temporary permit. The RTA granted a temporary permit to the appellant, which was contested by the respondent. The Government, suo motu, decided to examine the legality, regularity, and propriety of the RTA's order. Eventually, the Government set aside the orders of both the RTA and the Central Road Traffic Board, granting the permit to the respondent, citing public interest and the respondent's better history sheet.

3. Allegations of Mala Fides and Bias:
The appellant alleged that the Government's order was not honest, impartial, or judicial but was actuated by mala fides. The appellant claimed that the Government's actions demonstrated hostility and prejudice against him and favoritism towards the respondent. However, the court found no specific charge of bias against any member of the Government. The court emphasized that allegations of bias or mala fides must be specifically alleged and proved. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of bias or mala fides.

4. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions:
The court reiterated that it is not within its province to pronounce upon the correctness of the Government's view on the facts. The Government had the power to examine the records and determine whether the orders of the RTA and the Central Road Traffic Board were illegal, irregular, or improper. The court emphasized that it would not interfere merely because it might disagree with the Government's view. The court found that there was material before the Government to pass its order and that the Government was entitled to differ from the subordinate transport authorities on the issue of permit transfer.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the Government's decision to grant the permit to the respondent. The court found no evidence of bias or mala fides and emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in administrative decisions. The court agreed with the lower court's finding that the Government's order was not vitiated by lack of bona fides and that the Government had the jurisdiction to make the decision it did.