A. ST. ARUNACHALAM PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, VINAYAGAR TRANSPORT Vs. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS, BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.S. KRISHNA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., in Writ Petition No. 2 of 1956. The appellant is the proprietor of Sri Vinayagar Transports, Woriyur, Tiruchirappalli. He held a permit to ply his bus M.S.P. 1519 on the route Tiruchirapalli Mainguard Gate to Tiruchirappalli Railway Junction via Palakarai and Round Tana. On the 19th July, 1954, he applied to the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirappalli, for variation of the route so as to ply between Mainguard Gate and Golden Rock via Palakarai, Round Tana, Tiruchirappalli Railway Junction and retrace again to Round Tana and thence to Golden Rock. The variation was sought mainly on the ground that it would provide direct transport facilities from Golden Rock to Tiruchirappalli Railway Junction. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirappalli, notified this application for variation and called for representations. Messrs. Southern Roadways, Limited, a limited company doing motor transport business on a large scale, the contesting respondent before us, objected to the variation on the ground that it was not in public interest. Three other transport operators also objected to the grant of the variation. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirappalli, after hearing the applicant and the objectors, rejected the application of the appellant by his order dated 17th July, 1955. It is not necessary to set out the reasons for his decision which are contained in the order. Against this order, the appellant presented a revision petition to the Government of Madras under Section 64 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the order of the Regional Transport Officer may be set aside and the variation granted. The respondent company filed a statement before the Government maintaining the legality, regularity and justice of the order sought to be revised. The Government, by their order G.O. No. 3702 (Home) dated 28th December, 1955, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Officer and directed the grant of the variation sought by the Appellant. Thereupon the respondent filed in this Court a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution out of which this appeal arises, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order of the Government. This petition was filed on 2nd January, 1956. It may be mentioned that the grounds on which the writ was sought, all related to the merits. The petition was opposed by the appellant.

(2.) WHEN the petition came up for hearing before Rajagopalan, J., learned Counsel for the respondent raised a new plea, viz., that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to grant the variation asked for by the appellant and the Government had likewise no jurisdiction to grant, in revision, what the Regional Transport Officer himself could not have granted.

(3.) AT the outset it may be pointed out that though there was an attempt to question the correctness of the decision in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1955, that attempt was abandoned at the hearing of this appeal, because that decision was affirmed by a Full Bench of this Court since reported in Krishnaswami Mudaliar v. Palani Pillai : (1957)2MLJ243 (Writ Appeals Nos. 56 and 57 of 1956 on 12th April, 1957). Before us the argument proceeded on the footing that the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirappalli, had no jurisdiction to deal with the appellant's application for variation.