9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd another to S. Gopalan Nair-who has also preferred an appeal by special leave before this Court (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1959); both the Appellant and the said Gopalan Nair owned less than five buses each; and by the permit each one of them was authorised to run one bus from Ramanathapuram to Devakottai. This order was passed on 17-6-1957, in Proceeding No. Rule 1220/A1/56. 2. Respondents 3 and 4 whose applications for permits had been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority preferred appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Each of them owned more than five buses. The Appellate Tribunal by its order passed on 22-3-1958, allowed the appeals, set aside the order granting permits to the Appellant and the said Gopalan Nair and directed that permits should be issued in favour of the said Respondents 3 and 4. 3. Both the Regional Transport Authority and the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to deal with the respective claims of the parties on the basis of G. Order No. 1298 issued by the Government of Madras on 28-4-1956. Under this G. O., several directions had been issued, one of which dealt with the allotment of marks to the applicants for permits under several heads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents. It is on this construction of the C.O. and this Court's judgment in the case of R. Rama Reddiar, Civil Appeal No. 783 of 1957, D/-6-2-1958 (supra), that the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted permits to Respondents 3 and 4. 6. This order was challenged by the Appellant by an application for writ in the High Court of Madras (Writ Petition No. 257 of 1958). Rajagopalan J., who heard the petition, held that the construction put by the Appellate Tribunal on the decision of this Court in the case of R. Rama Reddiar, Civil Appeal No. 783 of 1957, D/- 6-2-1958 (SC) (Supra), was not shown to be erroneous; and he also found that the C.O. which according to the Appellant had been misconstrued amounted only to an executive or administrative direction and even if it was shown to have been misconstrued that would not justify the issue of a writ of certiorari. The application for writ was accordingly dismissed on 1-7-1958. 7. Against this decision the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Court of Appeal in the High Court of Madras; and the Court of Appeal agreed with both the conclusions of Rajagopalan J. It observed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory rules having the force of law, has the relevant part of the rule dealing with the question of allotment of marks been misconstrued and misapplied?; the decision of this question would naturally depend on another point, and that is what is the effect of the decision of this Court in the case of R. Rama Reddiar, Civil Appeal No. 783 of 1957, D/-6-2-1958 (SC) (supra)?; and (3) If the decision of this Court has been misinterpreted and the relevant rule misconstrued, is it such an error of law apparent on the face of the record as to justify the issue of a writ of certiorari? 11. It would be noticed that the questions 2 and 3 would fall for consideration only if the first question is answered in favour of the Appellant. It is not and cannot be seriously disputed that if the Government Order contains merely executive or administrative directions, their breach, even if patent, would not justify the issue of a writ of certiorari. The executive orders properly so-called do not confer any legal enforceable rights on any persons and impose no legal obligations on the subordinate authorities for whose guidance they are issued; that is not to say that the directions are not valid and sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dras, Writ Petitions Nos. 333 and 334 of 1951 : AIR 1953 Mad 279, where the High Court had held that Government should lay down principles on which the selection from among the applicants for stage carriage permits should be made and that such rules must be reasonable and in the interest of the public as required by Article 19(6) of the Constitution Government, therefore decided to lay down the principles that should be observed by all the transport authorities in the matter of grant of stage carriage permits, variations or extensions, and award of punishments for breach of rules and permits conditions. The Government Order consists of four parts. Part A deals with the grant of stage carriage permits; B with the grant of variations or extension of routes; C with the revision, of timings; and D with the suspension or cancellation of permits. Part A of the Order makes it clear that in deciding whether to grant or refuse a stage carriage permit, the transport authorities shall have regard to the following matters in addition to those mentioned in Section 47(1). Section 47(1), it may be added, prescribes by Sub-clauses (a) to (f) the relevant matters which the transport author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay down principles in order to ensure efficiency of service and equality of opportunity. It says to secure precision and to enable quick consideration, a system of marking according to the principles involved may be followed. In cases where this system works unfairly the Regional Transport Authority may ignore the marks obtained for reasons stated. It is thus clear that though a system of marking has been indicated in the subsequent directions, full discretion is left to the authority to ignore the marks if it thinks that the adoption of the marking method may work unfairly. This itself emphasises that full discretion was intended to be left to the authority which had to decide whether marking method should be employed or not. Then follow five paragraphs for assigning marks under five different heads. These heads are building strength to viable units, possession of repair and maintenance facilities, location of residence or places of business of the applicants on the road or at the terminal, technical or business experience or transport of the applicant, and special circumstances specified. The marks awardable under heads 2 to 5 are 2, 1, 1 and 2 respectively, that is to sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e directions contained in paragraphs B, C and D are like directions contained in the first four paragraphs of A purely administrative or executive in character. 16. These directions issued under Section 43A are not required to be published and may not even be known to the several persons applying for permits. They have been issued not for the information of the applicants, but for the information and guidance of the authorities; and that is not surprising because the public-at-large would be entitled to know these directions only if they confer any legal enforceable rights on the applicants for permits. Therefore, reading the Government Order as a whole, we feel no difficulty in agreeing with the view of the High Court that by this Order the State Government has issued executive instructions for the guidance of the transport authorities and that the said instructions are not in the nature of statutory rules having the force of law. 17. Incidentally we would like to add that the view we have taken about the character of the relevant Government Order is in conformity with the decision of this Court in the case of Raman and Raman v. State of Madras, Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1958 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
