9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (12) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that it got the highest number of marks. 2. This order was challenged by the three applicants whose applications for permit had been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter called the 'Appellate Tribunal') considered the merits of the four applicants for itself, assigned them marks and ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to a permit. The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal shows that though as a result of the marks assigned by it to the respective applicants, the appellant and Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. secured 4 marks each and the two other competitors 3 and 3 marks respectively, the Appellate Tribunal took the view that the appellant was a monopolist over a distance of 18 miles which was a part of the route in question, whereas Raman Raman (P) Ltd. had a near monopoly or predominant influence over the remaining part of the distance which was 16 miles, and so, it rejected the application for a permit made by the appellant and Raman Raman (P) Ltd. and granted the permit to respondent No. 1 over the route in question. It is against this order of the Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asan J. agreed with the contention of respondent No. 1 that the question as to whether any applicant for a permit is a monopolist is not irrelevant having regard to the provisions of s. 47(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. 4 of 1939). He, however, took the view that in assessing the value of the said consideration, the Appellate Tribunal had failed to consider the fact that between the monopolist appellant and the near monopolist Raman Raman (P) Ltd. there would be keen competition on the route in question, and so, the argument that a monopolist would tend to ignore the public interest for want of competition with anybody else was not valid in the present case. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the Appellate Tribunal had also failed to take into account the fact that between Tiruvarur and Nagapattinam there is a parallel railway which also offers some competition to the bus-operators. In the result, the learned Judge was satisfied that in rejecting the application for a permit made by the appellant, the Appellate Tribunal had been influenced mainly by the abstract concept of monopoly and its adverse effect on public interest. That, in brief, is the basis of the order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrative directions under s. 43(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act and it has been held by this Court in M/S. Raman Raman Ltd. v. The State of Madras Ors. [1959] Su. 2 S.C.R. 227. that the said administrative directions have no legal force and cannot be said to be binding on the appropriate authorities. The argument is that in the relevant administrative orders in regard to the assignment of marks in respect of the merits of the several applicants for permit, it seems to have been assumed that a person owning more than five buses may not get more marks though up to five buses owned by a single applicant appropriate marks are assigned; and Mr. Pathak urges that the policy underlying this administrative rule appears to be to discourage monopoly in road transport; but this policy is enunciated by an administrative rule which has no legal or binding force, and so, it is urged that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in referring to the consideration that the appellant was a monopolist on a part of the route. This argument is entirely misconceived. It is true that the administrative directions issued by the Government under s. 43(a) have no force of statutory rules and are, therefore, not bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have issued a writ in favour of the appellant. 10. We have carefully considered the order delivered by the Appellate Tribunal and we see no justification for the criticism made against that order that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal proceeded solely on the ground of the abstract concept of the evil effects of monopoly. The order has referred to the railway which runs parallel to the route and the order has taken into account the fact that the appellant is a monopolist on a part of the route and Raman Raman (P) Ltd. is a near monopolist on the remaining part of the route. Srinivasan J. thought that in dealing with the matter, the Appellate Tribunal ignored the fact that there was bound to be some kind of competition between the monopolist and the near monopolist. On the merits, we find some difficulty in acceding that a theoretically possible competition between the monopolist and the near monopolist can heave any relevance or validity in the present case. A passenger who wants to travel more than 18 miles of the route which is covered by the monopoly of the appellant would naturally prefer to go by the appellant's bus all the way, because in trying to take advantage of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. In support of his case that the impugned order was property set aside by Srinivasan J., Mr. Pathak has relied upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in R. v. Agricultural Land Tribunal for the Eastern Province of England, Ex parte Grant [1956] 3 All. E.R. 321.. In that case the Court of Appeal was called upon to consider whether the discretion vested in the Tribunal under 25(1)(a) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, had been validly exercised. The rest prescribed by s. 25(1)(a) was that the landlord should show that the carrying out of the purpose for which he proposed to terminate the tenancy in question is desirable in the interests of efficient farming, whether as respects good estate management or good husbandry or otherwise. In coming to the conclusion that the said requirement had not been satisfied, the Tribunal appears to have relied substantially on the fact that the tenants sought to be dispossessed had been in possession of the lands for many years. It appears that the Court of Appeal took the view that the real grounds for the Tribunal's decision on the section 25 point which appeared from paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement were ambiguous and to some ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
