P RAMA MURTHY Vs. S T A TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's application for variation of the route under this permit was rejected by the State Transport Authority. Appeal therefrom to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal suffered the same fate. Hence this petition.

(2.) Going through the order of the State Transport Authority as also that of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, we find no justification for taking of the matter a view different from the one concurrently taken by these two authorities. Decisions on the questions and contentions raised by the writ petitioner in support of his application for variation are all findings of fact. Facts and circumstances relevant thereto have been in detail considered by the authorities below and for their own good and sound reasons, the application for variation was rejected. Save under exceptional circumstances which is not the case here, it is not open to a writ Court to re-appreciate evidence, go into questions of fact and come to its independent findings. Findings of fact recorded by the authorities below ordinarily do not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. This is all the more so when the findings are concurrent.

(3.) In this view of the matter, we see no warrant to interfere. The Writ Petition thus fails and the same is dismissed, No order as to colts. Government Pleader's fee Rs.300/-.