TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leave, the first round of the contest was fought before the RTA (Regional Transport Authority) which, on an evaluation of the relative merits and demerits of the rivals, granted the permit to the present appellant, but this victory was short-lived because, at the second stage of the legal bout, the STAT (State Transport Appellate Tribunal) held that the respondent before us had better claims. The worsted appellant, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 and the learned Single Judge, who heard the petition, re-judged the relevance and weight of the points, pro and con, and as a result of this adjudicatory exercise of facts, demolished the order of the STAT. The learned Judge disagreed with the conclusion of the STAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t both the tiers, in the instant case, have unwittingly slipped into the subtle, but fatal, error of exercising a kind of appellate review. Shri M. K. Ramamurthy, for the respondent, was right in pointing out that the learned Single Judge went into the factum and weight of the claims which could be put in the scales in choosing the better of the two applicants for the permit. However, the Court rightly pointed out that some relevant factors had been ignored by the STAT (for example. that the first respondent's history sheet was not clean) and included in the judicial verdict factors which were extraneous, such as `that the bus of the petitioner did not, in fact, ply from 2-9-65 to 4-12-65, this being attributable to non-payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was made, cannot go into the computation and the reference relating to night-halt might will have been avoided in its discussion.' 'The non performance of service', which is slightly obscure, but we read it in the context as meaning the failure to ply the bus on the route is question subsequent to the grant of the permit. We express no opinion on the soundness of the observation but it is clear that the Division Bench itself has plainly accepted the position that what was not, according to it, relevant had gone into the reckoning when the STAT awarded the permit to the appellant. In this view, this judgment cannot also be sustained. 1 The fair course would, therefore, be to set aside the judgment under appeal and send the whol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
