LAWS(KER)-1952-7-21

KUMARASWAMI Vs. TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Decided On July 15, 1952
KUMARASWAMI Appellant
V/S
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals are directed against a consolidated order Govinda Pillai, J. passed in O.P. Nos. 46 to 50 of 1951 dismissing them. These Original Petitions were made by one Shri. S. Kumaraswamy, Manager, Pioneer Motor Service Limited, Nagercoil, under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash certain orders of the Transport Authority issuing Stage-Carriage Permits and the orders Government passed dismissing the appeals preferred by him against the grant of such permits. The petitioner in the Original Petitions is the appellant in all the five appeals. A.S. 657 arises from O.P. 46, A.S. 658 from O.P. 50, A.S. 659 from O.P. 49, A.S. 660 from O.P. 48 and A.S. 661 from O.P. 47. The circumstances under which the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court happened to be invoked and the main ground on which the applications were founded are set out as follows in the learned Judges order:

(2.) Though several additional grounds were urged before the learned Judge, besides the ground referred to in the above extract the only other ground pressed before us was that in disposing of the various applications before the Transport Authority, considerations other than those warranted by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act were taken into account and that the appellate orders of the Government were also vitiated by the same wrong approach. The argument was that the impugned orders were bad on the ground of arbitrariness or, what in America they would call the application of wrong standards.

(3.) Govinda Pillai, J. gave his decision on 28.6.1951. Since then (on 17th March 1952) in Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. (A.I.R.) 1952 Supreme Court 192 the Supreme Court had occasion to lay down the principles to be borne in mind in dealing with writ applications to quash orders passed by statutory bodies like Regional Transport Authorities, Central Traffic Boards etc. That case also arose out of rival claims of different proprietor of Bus Transport Services for Stage-Carriage permits. We may with advantage refer to what Chandrasekhara Iyer, J., said in the judgment in that case which was one reversing the decision of the Madras High Court quashing certain proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority (Tanjore) and the Central Traffic Board (Madras) and an order of the Government of Madras and directing the issue of permits in favour of the petitioner before the High Court. For our present purpose it is enough if we refer to the relevant portion of the head-note of the case as given in the All India Reporter, It reads:-