The Government's power of revision under S. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not absolute and the High Court can interfere with the Government's orders under Art. 226 of the Constitution if the Government's order is illegal, irregular, or improper.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J. :- This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Umamaheswaram, J., dismissing a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Andhra, in G. O. Nt. No. 131, Public Works and Transport Department, dated 14-2-1955.

2. The appellant is a transport operator. There was a vacancy consequent on the cancellation of the permit of a bus on the route Kunavaram to Dummegudem in the Agency area of the East Godavari District. The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, East Godavari, called for applications. The appellant was one of the nine applicants for the grant of a permit on the said route.

The Regional Transport Authority of East Godavari selected the appellant in preference to the other applicants. The reasons for his selection are stated in the proceedings of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, East Godavari, held on 26-5-1954, thus :

"...No. 3 is actually on the route on a temporary permit operating efficiently without any complaint. He is a fleet owner with a workshop at Rajahmundry with 2 idle buses. This is an agency route requiting an operator with a spare or idle bus to keep the service uninterrupted. Therefore he is preferred to the rest and is given a permit. No. 2 (respondent) who is the only agency operator has no spare bus and has no workshop facilities. Therefore his case is rejected along with the remaining applicants."

3. Against this order of the Regional Transport Authority, three of the applicants for the grant of a permit on the route in question, including the respondent, preferred appeals to the Central Board Traffic Board, Andhra, at Guntur. The Central Road Traffic Board by its proceedings dated 27-10-1954 set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting the permit to the appellant and directed the permit to be given to the respondent. The reasons given by the Board for its order are as follows :

"There are three applicants in this case A-1 and A-2 reside in places away from the route in question and normally a person residing in the Agency area and operating other services there could have been preferred. A-3 is such a person residing at Bhadrachalam and is an existing operator covering a sector of 17 miles on the route in question whereas respondent resides at Rajahmundry. A-3s record is also clean. He has only 2 permits. The respondent is residing at Rajahmundry and he is not anywhere near the route in question. In the circumstances it would appear that A-3 has the best claims among all for the grant of the permit and further the grant of this permit would enable him to build up an economic fleet."

4. Against the order of the Central Road Traffic Board, the appellant preferred a revision to the Government under S. 64-A, Motor Vehicles Act. In G. O. Rt. No. 131 dated 14-2-1955, the Government rejected the revision petition filed by the appellant. The material portion of the order of the Government in question runs thus :

"2. The Government have examined the case with reference to the revision petition cited the representation of the respondent, the connected records and the history sheets of the operators. Sri M. Ramayya states that the Central Road Traffic Board failed to recognise his claims for the permit which were duly taken into account by the Regional Transport Authority. He contends that for operating this route in an agency tract which is fit for traffic for six months in a year, a fleet owner like him with spare buses is better suited, than Sri K. Kondala Rao who has neither a spare bus nor a workshop. He has also urged that he had operated on the route already on a temporary permit efficiently and therefore he should be preferred. Mere running a vehicle on the route on a temporary permit does not by itself constitute a sufficient justification for the grant of a pucca permit. The petitioner is living at Rajahmundry far away from the route and th