BHAGSINGH Vs. TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution and as some common questions of law and fact are involved in them, both of them are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) WE first take up Writ Petition No. 255 of 1962, Bhagsingh Vs. The Trans-port Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan & others.

(3.) NUMEROUS cases have been referred to us to show that in cases of want of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction a writ of certiorari must be granted as of course. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A. M. Allison vs. B. L. Sen (5) have, however, laid down that proceedings by way of writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution are "not of course". Their Lordships observed: - "the High Court of Assam had the power to refuse the writs if it was satisfied that there was no failure of justice, and in these appeals which are directed against the orders of the High Court in applications under Art. 226, we could refuse to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. But we are not so. satisfied. We are of opinion that, having regard to the merits which have been concurrently found in favour of the respondents both by the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar and the High Court, we should decline to interfere", (Para 17) In Allison's case, the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar's order was impugned before the High Court of Assam on the score on want of jurisdiction. Relying on Allison's authority learned counsel for the respondents has urged that we should decline to quash the resolution dated 16/17. 10. 1961 (Ex. 3) on the ground that on merits justice has been done. There is much force in this contention but we do not want to make this argument the sole ground for refusing relief to the petitioner for there are much, more stronger reasons in this case for non-interference.