Judgment

PALEKAR, J. :- This is an appeal by certificate from the Judgment and order dated 5-8-1964 in Writ Petition No 4 of 1963 of the High Court of Madras.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelvelli, invited applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Tuticorin to Tiruchendur via Mikkani. The distance was about 24 miles. It was a medium route as mentioned in Government Order No. 2265 Home dated February 9, 1958. Several persons applied for the grant. The Regional Transport Authority considered the claims in the light of the directions issued by the State Government under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in G. O. M. S. No. 2265 Home dated August 9, 1958, as amended by G. O. No. 3647 Home dated December 1, 1958, and since, in its opinion, the respondents Shri Ram Popular Service (P) Ltd., had obtained the highest number of marks, namely, 3 the respondents were entitled to the grant. Six others including the present appellant, who were aggrieved by the order, went in appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. By a process of elimination the only important contestors before the Tribunal were the appellant and the respondents. The Tribunal found that so far as the marks were concerned, respondents had scored more marks and would, therefore, be entitled to serious consideration . But in the view of the Tribunal the respondents were a fleet owner with 32 permits while the appellant was a small operator with only two or three permits, and since in all respects the appellant was quite eligible, he was entitled to be preferred to the respondents on the ground that, in the interest of the public, small operators require encouragement as against the bigger operators. For this, the Tribunal relied on a clause of the G. O. referred to above which said that small and medium operators must be preferred to the bigger operators on the smaller and medium routes. The Tribunal, therefore, reversed the order of the Regional Transport Authority and made the grant in favour of the appellant.

3. The respondents, thereupon, filed the Writ Petition in the High Court for setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The learned single Judge of the Court who heard the Writ Petition, was of the view that there was no error in the order passed by the Tribunal because preference based on classification of operators as fleet owners and medium operators was germane to Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act which prescribed the matters which had to be considered by the authority for the purposes of a grant of a stage carriage permit. The Writ Petition was, therefore, dismissed.

4. The respondent then filed a letters patent appeal. By this time the decision of this court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, (1964) 7 SCR 1 had been rendered and by that decision G. O. No. 1298 dated April 28, 1956 which was the previous direction issued by the State Government under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was set aside. It was held that it was legitimate to assume that the legislature intended to respect the basic and elementary postulate of the rule of law that in exercising their authority and discharging their quasi judicial functions, the tribunals constituted under the Act must be left absolutely free to deal with the matter according to their best judgment guided only by the statutory light. It was pointed out that it was of the essence of fair and objective administration of law that the decision of Judges or tribunals must be absolutely unfettered by any extraneous guidance by the executive or administrative wing of the State. It was true that Section 43-A empowered the State Government to issue directions to the Regional Transport Authority and the authority was bound under that section to give effect to all such directions. But since the Government order purported to give directions in respect of matters which