D NATARAJA MUDALIAR Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arbitrary orders and mystical directions have poor mileage in this court when irrelevance and unreason are writ on their face even though the sanctity of concurrent error may give them some shelter.

(2.) To play a contract carriage is a fundamental right but it can be restricted reasonably as has been done by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The perspective is that what is fundamental is the right, not the restriction. Here, one Mudaliar, the appellant, owned a luxury coach, plied it for public benefit under a permit of 1971 for five years. The statutory criteria for grant of such permits is set out in S. 50 and renewals of permits must be governed by the same considerations, the procedure being regulated by S. 58. There is no grievance made that procedural violations are involved here. All that we know is that the permit was to expire in March 1976 and so a renewal application was made two months earlier. The State Transport Authority (for short, S. T. A.) rejected the request for renewal on the score that the 'ITDC has expanded its activities' and has in the field many tourist vehicles. Then the Authority added:'It is said that the utilisation of these vehicles is in the range of 90 to 100 per cent during the tourist season only (November to February) and that it is just 60 to 70% during other periods'. The Tamil Nadu State's Transport system also has vehicles on the road and some spare buses. All told, a few hundred motor vehicles, some of which are stage carriages and some contract carriages, serve the traveling public. On these statements, the conclusion was reached:"The State Transport Authority therefore considers that the facilities provided by these public sector undertakings are adequate. Renewal of the applicant's permit will not only be redundant in the circumstances but also result in unhealthy competition." The order does not indicate that anyone appeared and objected.

(3.) The State Transport Appellate Tribunal (S. T. A. T., to use an acronym), on appeal under S. 64, affirmed the rejection, using the same reasoning. About the abundant transport facilities developed since 1971, the Tribunal said:"The learned counsel for the appellant has no doubt stated that there is no material to hold the details (occurring at para 2 of the order) to be correct. The State Transport Authority is dealing with the provision of transport in the State level and he is expected to be in touch with the details of the availability of service from different sources and those particulars furnished by the S. T. A., could not also be said to be in any way strange. As the authority is having these details readily available it was open to the authority, to rely upon those details before coming to conclusion about the need for renewal as asked for by appellant. It is not therefore proper to comment on the details made available in para 2 of the order'. He obscurely encored, without any facts, that there would be 'unhealthy competition'. What is truly occult is the casual dismissal of an unanswerable factor. 'The appellant has stated in his affidavit that inasmuch as applications have been called for, for the grant of 100 tourist cabs, 15 omni buses and 10- omni-tourist buses for the State of Tamil Nadu, the comment about the absence of need for renewing the permit as made by the State Transport Authority is not proper.'