VILLA VENKATA RAO Vs. SATYANANDAM MUMMIDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition seeks to quash the order of the State Transport Appellate tribunal, Pondicherry in M. V. A. No, 37 of 1975 dated 19-11-1976.

(2.) THE petitioner, the applicant No. 1, was granted permit on the ground that he was the existing operator of one bus and as' such he had an edge over the new entrants. He had maintained his workshop and workshop arrangements on the way. Thus his claims were taken to be superior than the other applicants. Against this order, the matter was taken up in appeal to the Tribunal. The first respondent's appeal is M. V. A. N. 37 of 1975. The Tribunal posed two questions-- (1) Whether the grant of permit to respondent 1 is justified; and (2) if not, whether any of the two appellants is entitled to the permit. Concerning this, it was found that the grant of permit made by the Regional transport authority was not correct, because he did not have the necessary financial stability. On an analysis of the materials before it, it came to the conclusion that, on an overall assessment of the position, the grant made in favour of the writ petitioner who was suffering under financial pressure was not justified. Accordingly, it was set aside. It further proceeded to consider who among the two applicants would be better suited and it came to the conclusion that the first respondent herein was entitled to the permit because of his financial stability as he had immoveable property worth Its. 40,000 and he was also a new entrant. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) MR. K. Parasaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that the reasons adduced by the Appellate authority for arriving at a conclusion that the writ petitioner was financially unstable is based upon improper and incorrect reasonings. He would urge that merely because the petitioner had filed an application claiming the benefit of certain moratorium law, which claim was found to be false, that does not prove that he was suffering from financial pressure. Equally, the fact that he was sharing 40 per cent of his profits in partnership with his son-in- law, however illegal it might be under the law of income-tax, assuming that be so, that cannot form the basis for concluding that the petitioner was under financial pressure. In fact, for the assessment year 1975-76, documentary evidence was produced to show that the petitioner was accorded the status of a Hindu undivided family, instead of registered firm, which is proof enough to show that the partnership ceased to exist. Therefore, the insistence on the production of a deed of partnership or any other evidence was wholly unnecessary to hold that such an arrangement would amount to a manoeuvre resulting in a permanent disqualification or a financial pressure is a perverse reasoning.