TMI Blog1956 (3) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice for routes Nos. 1 and 2. These applications, along with others, were considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore. By its order dated the 31st of May, 1954, it granted a permit for route No. 1 to the appellant and for route No. 2 to respondent No. 2. Both the appellant and respondent No. 2 being dissatisfied appealed under section 64 of the Act to the appropriate authority, the Central Road Traffic Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), but the appeals were dismissed by its order dated the 18th of August, 1954. As section 64-A conferred upon the State Government certain powers, which have been described in this case as revisional powers, the appellant and respondent No. 2 filed representations thereunder before the State Government against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and the Board. The State Government set aside the orders passed by the aforesaid authorities and directed that permits for both the routes Nos. 1 and 2 be issued to respondent No. 2. Against this order, the appellant filed an application under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari. The application was heard by a single Judge w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority shall bear in mind in deciding to grant or to refuse a stage carriage permit. Section 64 enables a person aggrieved by the order of the Regional Transport Authority, with respect to matters men- tioned therein, to appeal to the prescribed authority. Section 64-A states: The State Government may, of its own motion or on application made to it, call for the records of any order passed or proceeding taken under this Chapter by any authority or officer subordinate to it, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding and after examining such records, may pay pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit . Mr. Pathak, for the appellant, contended that having regard to the terms of section 64-A, there were two stages for the exercise of power thereunder by the State Government. The first stage was the condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction for the exercise of that power. A collateral fact had to be decided, namely whether the order passed by any authority or officer subordinate to the State Government was in fact illegal, irregular or improper. If the decision was in the affirmative, then and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the State Government as it had refused to consider seniority or experience in motor transport as a factor for the granting of a permit and it thought that it could come to any conclusion it liked and reference was made to paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government in the High Court. On the basis of that affidavit and that paragraph, it was also urged that the error on the face of the record was that the Government acted on an erroneous idea of its own jurisdiction. He further contended that section 64-A was an invalid provision. In the alternative, he urged that a court or authority, in the exercise of its revisional powers, cannot take a contrary view of the facts to that taken by the subordinate court or authority. Exercise of such revisional power could only be made in cases where the subordinate court or authority had taken a perverse view of the facts and had arrived at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have arrived at. In support of his first contention, Mr. Pathak relied upon Paragraph 116 at page 59 of Halsbury's Laws of England, third edition, Vol. 11. It appears from an examination of that paragraph and par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depended its jurisdiction to exercise its powers under section 64-A. What is the nature of the functions performed under the Act by the Regional Transport Authority, the Board and the State Government in the matter of granting or refusing to grant a permit may now, be considered. That they are not judicial is accepted, but, it is said, they are not administrative but quasi-judicial and therefore amenable to the jurisdiction of a court possessing the power to issue a writ of certiorari. In proceedings under sections 47, 64 and 64-A of the Act there is no determination of any individual's rights and from that point of view the functions of these authorities may be regarded as executive or administrative. On the other hand, it may be said that a person has the fundamental right to carry on his business of plying buses and therefore has the right to have the statutory functions of these authorities properly exercised in which case they would be quasi-judicial functions. Assuming this to be so, it has yet to be seen whether the State Government acted in excess of its legal authority. Chapter IV of the Act contains provisions concerning the control of transport vehicles. The Act aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly and the advantages to the public of the service to be provided. Assuming that in the matter of experience there was nothing much to choose between the appellant and respondent No. 2, better facilities for operation of the bus service possessed by respondent No. 2, would be to the interest of the public generally and an advantage to the public Of the service to be provided and therefore was an overriding factor when other things were equal. As between the appellant and respondent No. 2 neither the Regional Transport Authority nor the Board recorded a finding as to which of them had the better facilities for transport operation or that such faci- lities as existed between them were of equal merit. The State Government did not have, therefore, the advantage of knowing, on the face of the orders of these authorities, what view they took of this matter.,Even if it is assumed that their orders meant that the facilities for operation as between the appellant and respondent No. 2 were of equal merit, still the State Government was not in a position to know on what material this opinion was based or that it was a reasonable view. In order to satisfy itself the State Government examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was accorded to the State Government. We are not prepared therefore to say that the State Government acted in excess of its statutory authority. There is no error on the face of the record so far as the order of the State Government is concerned and reference to paragraph 8 of the State Government's affidavit in the High Court does not establish any such thing. That paragraph was in answer to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the appellant's affidavit and it set out the contentions of the State Government as to its powers. There is nothing in that paragraph to establish that in fact the State Government had declined to consider seniority or experience in the matter of selection. No substantial ground was put forward for supposing that section 64-A was an illegal provision. It was within the competence of the State Legislature to insert section 64-A into the Act. It was a reasonable provision in keeping with the entire scheme of the Act concerning transport vehicles and control of road transport. As to the extent of powers of revision in a court or authority we do not intend to express any opinion in this case having regard to the view we take that the order of the State Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
