A VEDACHALA MUDALIAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for issuing a writ of 'certiorari' to quash the order of the Government of Madras dated 5-7-1951. The petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Gandhibam Bus Service, Chingleput. He was granted two stage carriage permits for running two buses on the route from Vanangupet to Madras. One of the two buses MDH. 1144 starts from Madras and the other from Vanangupet every morning at 7 a.m. The schedule of timings in respect of two buses was fixed some years ago and the said schedule has been in existence for over six years. The 2nd respondent is the owner of bus MDH. 1166 running between Vanangupet add Madurantakam as shuttle service with six singles. Timings for this bus also were fixed some years ago. He was starting his bus service at Vanangupet at 8-5 a.m. He moved the Regional Transport Authority, Chingleput for the revision of timings for his bus. The Regional Transport Authority by its order No. 2505/B-1/50 dated 21-7-1950 fixed the timings for his bus at 6-40 a.m. instead of 8-5 a.m. Against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Central Road Traffic Board and the Central Board Traffic Board by its order dated 30-8-1950 directed that the petitioner's bus should leave Vanangupet at 7 a.m. and the 2nd respondent's bus at 8-5 a.m. that is they restored the previous timings. Thereupon the 2nd respondent preferred a revision to the Government at Madras who set aside the order of the Central Road Traffic Board without giving any reasons for the same. The petitioner filed a writ of certiorari for quashing that order and the High Court quashed that order on the ground that the order on the face of it did not disclose the defect which vitiated the order of the subordinate authority. The 2nd respondent moved the Government on 5-5- 1951 for revision of the Central Road Traffic Board's order. The Government passed the following order : "The High Court quashed the G. O. on the ground that no reason was given in it for setting aside the Central Road Traffic Board's order. The High Court however made it deaf that by quashing the G.O. the order of the Central Road Traffic Board was not confirmed and that the Government were not pre- vented from passing fresh and valid orders if they thought fit.

(2.) The learned Advocate General appearing for the Government and Mr. Bhashyam appearing for the 2nd respondent took the preliminary objection against the maintainability of the present application. They contended that the order of the Regional Transport Authority in fixing the timings is an administrative act and therefore the order of the Central Road Traffic Board made in appeal against that order and that of the Government passed in the exercise of their revisional jurisdiction are all administrative acts not liable to be quashed by a writ of 'certiorari'. At this stage, it will be convenient to notice some of the cases which lay down the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction in issuing writs. The leading case on the subject is 'Rex v. Electricity Commissioners', 1924-1-K.B. 171 " where Atkin L. J. stated the law as follows;

(3.) Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind I shall proceed to consider whether the act of the Regional Transport Authority in modifying the time-table is a quasi judicial act or an administrative act. To put it in other words whether the said order satisfied the conditions laid down by Slesser L.J. The powers and duties of the Regional Transport Authority and the character of the disposal of the proceedings of that authority can only be gathered by a scrutiny of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act. Under Section 44 of the Act, the Provincial Government is empowered to constitute :