Judicial discipline demands consistency in rendering judgments, and inconsistent orders undermine the people's faith in the judicial system and the rule of law.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

I heard counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader. Judgments of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, vide Exts. P5 and P6, directing the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam to grant temporary permits as such may not be strictly legal. This Court in O.P. Nos. 12492 and 12940 of 1998 has declared that State Transport Appellate Tribunal has no power to grant permits, which is a function of the Regional Transport Authority. Consequently, Tribunal has no power to direct the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam to grant temporary permits. Tribunal can only in appropriate cases set aside the order and remit the matter to the Regional Transport Authority to decide the matter in accordance with law or allow the appeal in toto. Since there is no challenge in the O.P. against Exts. P5 and P6,1 am not inclined to interfere with those orders. Counsel for the petitioner wanted a similar treatment as was done by the Tribunal in the case of appellant in Ext. P6 judgment.

2. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out in almost identical fact situation, Tribunal passed contradictory orders on the same day. I have gone through Exts. P5 and P6 judgments. Exts. P5 and P6 deals with operation of services through certain routes within the Kochi City limits. Both the applicants applied for temporary permits for four months in surrendered vacancies. Both of them had already operated their vehicles for four months and sought for further issue of temporary permit for another four months. Applicant in Ext. P5 sought for temporary permit on the route Poothotta-Ernakulam (Kaloor Bus Stand), and applicant in Ext. P6 on the route Aluva-Wellingdon Island. Both the applicants as well as the routes come within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam. I do not find any justifiable reason for the Tribunal to meetput a different treatment to the applicants covered by Exts. P5. When we consider the applications submitted by applicants in Ext. P5 and P6, there is absolutely no material difference.

3. Judicial discipline demands consistency in rendering judgments. A Judicial Officer may hold different views on various aspects. A Judicial Officer may err and pass contradictory orders inadvertently. But once it is brought to the knowledge of the judicial Officer, he is duty bound to keep track of consistency. In-consistent orders passed by a judicial officer almost in the same fact situation, and that too on the same day, would give rise to complaint of discriminatory treatment, which will undermine the people's faith in judicial system and the rule of law. It will cause resentment and anguish and make an imprint in the mind of the litigant that he has been discriminated. A Judicial Officer may err and pass illegal orders, but he shall not err in consistency. He should be consistent even in illegality.

4. In the instant case, I have no hesitation to say that the judicial Officer erred in passing inconsistent orders. In other words, he erred in consistency. In order to uphold the consistency, in judicial judgments, for that reason alone, I declare that petitioner is also entitled to similar treatment as was done to the applicant in the case of Ext. P6 judgment. Hence in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred on the under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India I direct the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, to treat both the applicants alike and issue four months' temporary permit.

5. I make it clear that this order is passed without prejudice to the right of third parties, if any. This Court is not expressing any opinion on merits. It is only for the reason that two inconsistent orders have been passed on the same day on the same fact situation, I directed the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam to grant four month's temporary permit to the petitioner.

O.P. is disposed of as above.