CUMBUM ROADWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED MADURAI GOOD LUCK TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED NATESAN TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SOMU TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED SRI LAKSHMIPATHI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED TANJORE MOTOR TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave raise common questions and will be dealt with together. We shall set out the facts in C. A. 363 to understand the questions raised in these appeals. The Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot granted a stage carriage permit on the route Kumbakonam to Neiveli to the first respondent out of a large number of applicants. This led to seven appeals against the grant of the permit before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Those seven appeals were heard together by the Appellate Tribunal and it set aside the order of the Transport Authority granting the permit to the first respondent and instead granted the permit to the appellant. This was on August 7, 1962. Thereupon the first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court at Madras challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. This writ petition came up for hearing on March 5, 1964 before a learned Single Judge. On the same date, this Court decided in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1964-7 SCR 1: (AIR 1964 SC 1573) that Government Order No. 1298 issued by the Government of Madras under S. 43-A as introduced by the Madras Amending Act No. XX of 1948 in the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939, could not be issued under that section inasmuch as it purported to give directions in respect of matters which had been entrusted to tribunals constituted under the Act and which had to be dealt with by them in quasi-judicial manner. In consequence this Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in that case as it was based on the provisions of the impugned Government Order. The decision of this Court, it seems, was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, and following that decision, he allowed the writ petition on March 10, 1964 and quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal leaving it free to dispose of the appeal afresh if it could do so or remit the matter in its turn to the Transport Authority for fresh disposal. This led to a Letters Patent Appeal by the present appellant which was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court on April 22, 1964. The principal argument before the Appeal Court was that every order of the transport authority or the appellate tribunal need not be quashed in view of the decision of this Court in Rajagopala Naidu's case, 1964-7 SCR 1 : (AIR 1964 SC 1573), but only those orders should be quashed which had proceeded on the basis of the Government Order referred to above. It was further contended that the present order of the Appellate Tribunal had not proceeded on the basis of the Government Order referred to above and therefore need not be quashed. The Appeal Court did not accept the contention that the order of the Appellate Tribunal in the present case was not vitiated by being based on the Government Order in question. It consequently dismissed the appeal. It then considered the question as to what order should be passed in the circumstances, and whether the matter should be remanded to the Transport Authority or to the Appellate Tribunal for disposal. It took the view that if in every case the remand was made to the Transport Authority it would lead to serious public inconvenience, for the consequence of the quashing of orders of the Transport Authority would be that stage carriages on many routes would stop plying. The Appeal Court therefore thought that unless there were exceptional reasons it would be sufficient if the order of the Appellate Tribunal alone was quashed and the matter remitted to it for consideration untrammelled by the Government Order in question. Finally the Appeal Court considered the question as to which parties should be heard again by the Appellate Tribunal on remand. It was contended before the Appeal Court that only the parties which came to the High Court by way of writ proceedings should be heard by the Appellate Tribunal and not others who might have preferred appeals to the Appellate Tribunal but had not proceeded further by way of writ proceedings to the High Court. The Appeal Court was unable to accept this contention and was of the view that in the peculiar situation that had arisen all the appeals that had been disposed of by a single appellate order should be reconsidered by the Appellate Tribunal as the taint affected the entire appellate order which must be considered as one. The Appeal Court therefore ordered that the Appellate Tribunal should consider all the seven appeals that had been filed before it, even though only one of the appellants before the Appellate Tribunal had come to the High Court by way of writ proceedings. The Appeal Court having refused to grant leave, the appellant got special leave from this Court; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

(2.) Three points have been urged before us on behalf of the appellant, namely-

(3.) We are of opinion that there is no force in the first two contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. We agree with the Appeal Court that the Appellate Tribunal was plainly influenced by the Government Order when it dealt with the appeals before it and this cannot be said to be a case where the decision of the Appellate Tribunal was not influenced by the Government Order in question. A perusal of the order of the Appellate Tribunal shows that it considered the various aspects which were mentioned in the Government Order in question. It had even referred in some of the appeals to the marks obtained by various operators. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the Appellate Tribunal was not influenced by the Government Order in question. We also see no force in the contention that as the respondent had relied on the Government Order it was not open to it to urge in the High Court that the Government Order was bad. Before the decision of this Court, referred to above, the Government Order had always been relied upon by applicants for permits. That is no reason for holding that the respondent was barred from raising the question that the Government Order was bade after the decision of this Court.