Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd., Appellant
Versus
C. Chandrasekaran and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1015 of 1963.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak Senior Advocate, (M/s. K. K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C.Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Respondent No. 1.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 47(1)(a) - GRANT OF PERMIT - MONOPOLY - RELEVANCE - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - WHEN TO BE ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a bus operator, applied for a permit to operate a bus service on a route between Nannargudi and Nagapattinam. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the appellant, but the State Transport Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision and granted the permit to respondent No. 1. The appellant challenged the decision of the Appellate Tribunal by filing a writ petition in the Madras High Court, which was allowed. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision of the single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant a permit to the appellant on the ground that it was a monopolist on a part of the route and Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. was a near monopolist on the remaining part of the route. The Court further held that the High Court was not justified in issuing a writ of certiorari against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal merely because some reasons which were urged before the High Court had not been expressly considered by the Appellate Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant a permit to the appellant on the ground that it was a monopolist on a part of the route and Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. was a near monopolist on the remaining part of the route? 2. Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of certiorari against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal merely because some reasons which were urged before the High Court had not been expressly considered by the Appellate Tribunal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant a permit to the appellant on the ground that it was a monopolist on a part of the route and Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. was a near monopolist on the remaining part of the route because the grant of monopoly to a bus operator may be prejudicial to public interest. 2. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in issuing a writ of certiorari against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal merely because some reasons which were urged before the High Court had not been expressly considered by the Appellate Tribunal because the decision of the Appellate Tribunal did not suffer from any infirmity.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.
This appeal has been brought to this Court by special leave and it has been filed against the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court by which the order passed by a learned single Judge of the said High Court directing the issue of a writ of certiorari in favour of the appellant Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. has been reversed. It appears that the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur called for applications for the grant of one stage carriage permit between Nannargudi and Nagapattinam. The distance between these two places is 34 miles. Four applicants applied for a permit on this route. They were the appellant, Raman and Raman (P) Ltd., Balasubrahmanya Udayar, and respondent No. 1 C. Chandrasekaran. The Regional Transport Authority considered the merits of these four applicants and assigned them marks as a result of which a permit was granted to the appellant on the ground that it got the highest number of marks.
2. This order was challenged by the three applicants whose applications for permit had been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter called the Appellate Tribunal ) considered the merits of the four applicants for itself, assigned them marks and ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to a permit, The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal shows that though as a result of the marks assigned by it to the respective applicants, the appellant and Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. secured 4 marks each and the two other competitors 3-1/2 and 3-1/4 respectively the Appellate Tribunal took the view that the appellant was a monopolist over a distance of 18 miles which was a part of the route in question, whereas Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. had a near monopoly or predominant influence over the remaining part of the distance which was 16 miles, and so, it rejected the application for a permit made by the appellant and Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. and granted the permit to respondent No. 1 over the route in question. It is against this order of the Appellate Tribunal that the appellant preferred a writ petition before the Madras High Court (No. 25 of 1959). Srinivasan, J. who heard the writ petition came to the conclusion that the Appellate Tribunal had signally failed to consider the relevant evidence, and so, this order needed to be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari was ordered to be issued as prayed for by the appellant.
3. This order was challenged by respondent No. 1 by preferring an appeal under the Letters Patent before a Division Bench of the said High Court. The Division Bench has taken the view that having regard to the reasons given by the Appellate Tribunal in support of its conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to a permit, Srinivasan, J. was not justified in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the result the order passed by Srinivasan, J. was reversed and the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court in appeal. Respondents 2 and 3 are State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and the Regional Transport Authority respectively and they have been impleaded because the order passed by respondent No. 2 was questioned in the writ proceedings and is the subject-matter of the present appeal.
4. It is common ground that over a distance of 18 miles in the first sector of the route in question, the appellant runs seven buses and no other bus runs on that sector of the route, so that in respect of this sector, the appellant is a monopolist. It is also common ground that over the second sector of the route consisting of 16 miles Raman and Raman (P) Ltd., runs nine buses, whereas two buses are run by two other permit-holders; and that means that Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. can be described as a near monopolist on that part of the route. It is in the light of these two ad
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
