Tribunal duty bound to act judicially.

This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, dated 16th March, 1950 and of the Government of Madras, dated 14th October, 1950.

Sri Rama Vilas Service, Kumbakonam, surrendered four permits in respect of route Pudukottai-Tanjore. The Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirapalli, called for applications to fill up the four vacancies. The petitioner, along with others, applied for permits. The petitioner filed three applications, one for a permit to run a bus between Pudukottai and Tanjore, and two other applications for the variation of the existing route, Nagarapatti to Pudukottah by extending it to Tanjore. The third respondent L. Narayanamurthy & Company, also applied for a permit on 1st December, 1949. The Regional Transport Authority passed a resolution granting two permits to the Pudukottai Co-operative Transports, Ltd., Pudukottai, and one permit to the petitioner in variation of the route Pudukottai to Nagarapatti up to Tanjore, and the fourth permit to Messrs. Rajamani Transports, Ltd., Pudukottai, in variation of the route, Vendampatti to Pudukottai up to Tanjore. The other applications were rejected. The third respondent and others whose applications were dismissed preferred appeals against the orders of the not questioned in that appeal. The Central Road Traffic Board disposed of all the appeals together on 16th March, 1950. The appeals filed by the applicants other than the third respondent were dismissed. In the appeal filed by the third respondent he was given a pucca permit in place of the petitioner and the appeal was allowed to that extent. The petitioner preferred a revision to the Government of Madras, who by an order dated 14th October, 1950, declined to interfere. The petitioner has now filed this petition for the issue of a writ to quash those two orders of the Central Road Traffic Board and the Government of Madras.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order of the Central Road Traffic Board was illegal, as they had granted a relief to the third respondent in respect of a permit which was not the subject-matter of the appeal, and against the Petitioner, who was not a party to the appeal. The respondent’s counsel contended that though to the particular appeal filed by the third respondent the petitioner was not made a party and though the permit issued to the petitioner was not the subject-matter of that appeal, inasmuch as all the appeals were heard together, and as the petitioner had an opportunity to support the order in his favour, the order of the Central Road Traffic Board was valid.

It was further argued that as another remedy by way of revision to the Government lay and that remedy was availed of, this petition was not maintainable. The main question, therefore, in this application is whether the Central Road Traffic Board can give a relief to an appellant in respect of a matter not covered by that appeal to the detriment of a person not a party to that appeal.

It is settled law that a right of appeal can only be conferred by a statute and the scope of that appeal is also confined to the limits prescribed by the statute. It is also not disputed that the Regional Transport authority, in exercise of its original jurisdiction, and the Central Road Traffic Board and the Government in discharge of their appellate and revisional jurisdictions are bound to act judicially. Section 64 confers appellate jurisdiction on the Central Road Traffic Board. The relevant provision of that section reads as follows:

“Section 64. Any person (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the Provincial or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him. . . . may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such a person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard”.

The prescribed authority under the rules is the Cen