RAMAN AND RAMAN LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal comes before us on a certificate granted by the Madras High Court that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court as it involved two important questions, namely, the powers of the Government under S. 64-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act, 1948 for the State of Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to interfere with the orders of Subordinate Transport Authorities on the ground of property and the limits of judicial review which the courts have under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The appellant and respondent 2 had applied for stage-carriage permits in the Mayuram Town Service for routes Nos. 1 and 2. These applications, along with others, were considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore. By its order dated 31-5-1954, it granted a permit for route No. 1 to the appellant and for route No. 2 to respondent 2. Both the appellant and respondent 2 being dissatisfied appealed under S. 64 of the Act to the appropriate authority, the Central Road Traffic Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), but the appeals were dismissed by its order dated 18-8-1954. As S. 64-A conferred upon the State Government certain powers, which have been described in the case as revisional powers, the appellant and respondent 2 filed representations thereunder before the state Government against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and the Board. The State Government set aside the orders passed by the aforesaid authorities and directed that permits for both the routes Nos. 1 and 2 be issued to respondent 2. Against this order, the appellant filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari. The application was heard by a single Judge who issued the requisite writ. Against his decision there was a Letters Patent appeal by respondent 1, which was allowed and the decision of the single Judge was set aside.

(3.) The ground upon which the Regional Authority granted the appellant and respondent 2 permits for routes Nos. 1 and 2 respectively was that they were experienced and were operating town buses at Kumbakonam. This opinion was approved by the Board which also thought that a certain amount of healthy competition was required in the Mayuram Town routes. It also considered that the Regional Transport Authority was within its rights in not considering the aspect of sector coverage by muffassil buses of the appellant and respondent 2. It appears that respondent 2 was covering the entire route No. 1 and the appellant was covering a portion of route No. 2. The State Government in setting aside the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and the Board passed the following order: