M RAMAYYA Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brother Subba Rao, J., in W. P. No. 176 of 1951 by which he refused to set aside the order of the State of Madras, dated 1-6-1951, which in its turn set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, East Godavari, and granted a stage coach permit to the 2nd respondent for the route Rajahmundry to Tuni via Pithapuram.

(2.) On 22nd June 1949, the Regional Transport Authority, East Godavari, by notification under S. 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, notified a new route Rajahmundry to Tuni via Pithapuram, and invited applications for the grant of one pucca stage carriage permit for operating on the said route. The appellant and the 2nd respondent herein, along with a number of other people, applied for the permit. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the Appellant, which order was confirmed on appeal, by the Central Road Traffic Board, under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, an application to revise the order of the Regional Transport Authority was made to the Government who set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and issued a permit to the second respondent. Thereupon the appellant applied to this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the State of Madras. Our learned brother, Subba Rao, J., held that there were no grounds for interfering with the order of the State Government and dismissed the application. Hence this appeal against that order.

(3.) A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. D. Narasaraju for the 2nd respondent that no appeal lies against an order of a single Judge either issuing, or refusing to issue, a writ of certiorari, and that Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has no application. This is controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant. While contending that the order appealed against should not be interfered with, the learned Advocate-General controverts the position taken by the 2nd respondent that in matters like this no appeal lies. We have therefore to decide whether the contention put forward on behalf of the 2nd respondent can be acceded to or hot.