Summary
The appellant is a bus operator in the State of Madras. On an invitation for applications for the grant of two stage carriage permits he submitted his applications along with many others. The State Transport Authority considered the merits of the application awarding marks in accordance with the principles prescribed by Madras G.O. No. 1298, dated April 28, 1956 issued under s. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 inserted by the Madras Amending Act 20 of 1948.
The Transport Authority on this basis granted the two permits to the appellant. Against this order a number of appeals were filed by some of the unsuccessful applicants including respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the present appeal.The Appellate Tribunal re-allotted marks in accordance with the above G.O. and respondents 2 and 3 having secured the maximum number of marks were granted the permits. On the rejection of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and after appealing without success to a Division Bench the appellant applied for a certificate to appeal to this Court which rejected. The present appeal was filed on special leave granted by this Court.It was contended on behalf of the appellant before this Court that since Madras G.O. No. 1298, dated April 28, 1956, purports to issue direction to the Transport Authority in the discharge of its quasi-judicial functions it is beyond the powers conferred by s. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act which authorises only the issue of directions to the said authority in the discharge of its administrative functions and therefore it is bad.Held, (i) Section 43A confers power on the State Government to issue orders and directions to the State Transport Authority only in relation to its administrative functions.M/s. Raman and Raman v. The State of Madras [1959] 2 S.C.R.227, relied on.(ii)It is well settled that ss. 47, 48, 57, 60, 64 and 64A deal with quasi-judicial functions and when the transport authorities are dealing with applications for permits and evaluating the respective claims of the parties, the transport authorities are discharging quasi-judicial functions and their orders are quasi-judicial orders subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226.L/P(D)1SCI-1 2New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v. Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd.[1957] S.C.R., 98 M/s Raman and Raman Ltd. v. State of Madras, [1959] 2 S.C.R. 227, B. Abdulla Rowther v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, A.I.R. 1959, S.C. 896, relied on.(iii) In interpreting s. 43A it is 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 judgement. It is 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.(iv) The impugned order is outside the purview of s. 43A inasmuch as it purports to give directions in respect of matters which have been entrusted to the tribunals constituted under the Act and which have to be dealt with by them in quasi-judicial manner.(v) The decision of the appellate Tribunal is solely based on the provisions of the impugned order and since the said order is invalid, the decision is also bad.See the full content of this document
Extract
B. Rajagopala Naidu VS. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors.
PETITIONER: B. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/03/1964BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)WANCHOO, K.N.SHAH, J.C.AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALASIKRI, S.M.CITATION: 1964 AIR 1573 1964 SCR (7) 1CITATOR INFO : RF 1966 SC1366 (1,4,6,7)R 1969 SC 48 (10)R 1970 SC1241 (6)R 1972 SC2250 (14,15,16,19,20)R 1974 SC1117 (4)R 1974 SC2297 (5)R 1977 SC 416 (3)ACT: Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), s. 43A (as inserted by Madras Amending Act 20 of 1948) Madras G.O. No. 1298, dated April 28, 1956-Government order prescribing the award of marks-If direction to Regional Transport Authority in the discharge of its quasi-judicial function-Section 43A-Scope of--if authorises only administrative directions.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1964.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 29, 1963, of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 214 of 1962.S. Mohan Kumar amagalam, M. N. Rangachari, R. K. Garg, M.K. Ramamurthi, for the appellant.R. Ganapathy Iyer, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.A. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for respondent No.4.M. C. Setalvad, N. C. Krishna Iyengar and 0. C. Mathur, for Intervener.March 5, 1964. The judgment of the Court was delivered by-GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.-The short but important point of law which has been raised for our decision in this appeal by special leave is whether G.O. No. 1298 issued by the Gov- ernment of Madras on April 28, 1956 in exercise of its powers conferred by s. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter called the Act) inserted by the Madras Amending Act 20 of 1948, is valid.Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam who appears for the appellant contends that the impugned Government order is invalid for the simple reason that it is outside the purview of s. 43A.The impugned order was issued as early as 1956 and since then, its va...
See the full content of this document