9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (12) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in Government Order No. 2265 Home dated 9/02/1958. Several persons applied for the grant. THE Regional Transport Authority considered the claims in the light of the directions issued by the State Government under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in G. O. M. S. No. 2265 Home dated 9/08/1958, as amended by G. O. No. 3647 Home dated 1/12/1958, and since, in its opinion, the respondents Shri Ram Popular Service (P) Ltd., had obtained the highest number of marks, namely, 3 the respondents were entitled to the grant. Six others including the present appellant, who were aggrieved by the order, went in appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. By a process of elimination the only important contestors before the Tribunal we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen filed a letters patent appeal. By this time the decision of this court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, (1964) 7 SCR 1 = (AIR 1964 SC 1573), had been rendered and by that decision G. O. No. 1298 dated 28/04/1956 which was the previous direction issued by the State Government under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was set aside. It was held that it was legitimate to assume that the legislature intended to respect the basic and elementary postulate of the rule of law that in exercising their authority and discharging their quasi judicial functions, the tribunals constituted under the Act must be left absolutely free to deal with the matter according to their best judgment guided only by the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s bound by the directions given, then their orders deserved to be set aside for the same reasons which prevailed in the Supreme Court in B. Rajagopala Naidu's case. That view of the High Court in unexceptionable because this court in a later decision in R. Laxmi Narayan v. Vythilingam, Civil Appeal No. 1972 of 1966, decided on 27-8-1969 (SC), held that the Government Order No. 2265 of 1958 was also invalid. Therefore, the only question which remained before the High Court for consideration was whether the Tribunal applied its mind independently to the matters referred to in Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act or felt itself constrained by the Government Order No. 2265 of 1958 referred to above. After referring to observations made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sub-section (1) of Section 47 which required the authority to consider the interest of the public generally. The fleet owners were likely to become monopolistic if even shorter routes were given to them and in course of time, if they monopolised both the shorter routes and the longer routes there would be no effective competition which is, undoubtedly, necessary in the interest of the public generally. The small operators being encourages to successfully ply the shorter routes would in course of time be ready to take over the longer routes and that would generate healthy competition between the longer route operators and help in promoting passengers interest. In other words, such a consideration was germane to Section 47 and merely beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /4 mark more than what was given to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority. But this addition did not make any difference because even with this addition to the appellant's marks the respondents' score would be still higher. IT also considered the period of experience of the appellant in the line and noticed that he had two or three permits on shorter routes. Recently he has shifted to Tuticorin which was one of the terminii of the route and had also a well-fitted workshop at Tuticorin. Then again for 3 years preceding the date of the application the appellant had got a very clean record. All these were matters which the Tribunal was entitled to take into consideration under Section 47 and merely because they also find a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section47 in their own way but also because considerations other than those in the instructions get automatically excluded although they are quite relevant for the purpose of Section 47. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was right in remanding the case to the Tribunal for a re-hearing without the constraint of the Government order. Mr. Ramamurthy then contended that in any case the respondent would not be entitled to a grant because by Act No. 16 and 1971 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, has been amended in its application to the State of Tamil Nadu and under those amendments the respondents who are the owners of 32 permits will not be entitled to consideration for grant of permit. It is, however, contended on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
