MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are inclined to take the view that this is not a fit case in which this Court should allow itself to be persuaded to interfere with the interlocutory order made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal appointing the Commissioner. Be that as it may, there is no substance in the case. The appellate authority's powers have not been circumscribed by any statutory provision. Hence we must apply the well- recognised principle that in the absence of a restriction imposed on the appellate authority's powers its powers are co-extensive with that of the original authority. The power to appoint a Commissioner is an incidental power for the effective exercise of the powers of the original authority as well as the appellate authority. If the appellate authority feels that for a satisfactory disposal of the case appointment of the Commissioner is necessary for measuring the distance between two points as in this case, we fail to see how it can be said that the said authority acted without jurisdiction. The appellant is a grantee. The measurements made by the Engineers have been accepted by the regional Transport Authority. All that is to happen by the appointment of a commissioner is that the Advocate-Commissioner assisted by the Engineers is going to measure the distance between two points. Distance cannot vary just because another person measures it. Truth will come out when the Commissioner is appointed. WE see no reason why the appellant should feel so much apprehensive just because an Advocate-Commissioner is appointed for measuring the distance. This creates suspicion that the original measurements may not be accurate and therefore the appellant is fighting against the appointment of the commissioner for measuring the distance. WE therefore see no grounds to interfere. The appeal fails and is dismissed.