# M•y 8. 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. JAGANNAlHAM & BKOS v. SOWDAMBIGAI MOTOl\.S SERVICE

- **Citation:** [1964] 3 S.C.R. 666
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-10-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. l 79 of 1963
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal, J. R. Mudholkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-y-8-666-supreme-court-reports-1964-vol-jagannalham-bkos-v-sowdambigai-motol-s-3014
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles-Application for •tage carriage permitRegional Transport Authority granted permit-Grant sel aaid•
by Transport Appellate Tribunal without giving reasons for
preference-Vilidity of the order-Duty of Appellate '.l'ribunal-
.Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939).
The appellant, as well as respondents I and 2 and others,
had applied !or the grant of stage carriage permit. The Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to each of the two
respondents. The appellallt aggrieved by this order preferred
an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The
Appellate Tribunal held that the appellant should be preferred
to the Respondent No. i. Against this order the respondent
No. I preferred a writ peution before the High Court. The
High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the
ground that the Appellate Tribunal dtd not state the reason for
preferring the appellant to the Kespondent No. I.
Held that the High Court was justified in setting aside the
order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
In fact the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal did not determine the only
question which required to be determined and that was why
one operator should be preferred to another •.
Raman & Raman Ltd.v. The State of Madra• [1959] Supp.
2 S.C.R, 227, referred to.

## Text

1963
M•y 8.
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
JAGANNAlHAM & BKOS.
v.
SOWDAMBIGAI MOTOl\.S SERVICE
(K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL
and J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.)
Motor Vehicles-Application for •tage carriage permitRegional Transport Authority granted permit-Grant sel aaid•
by Transport Appellate Tribunal without giving reasons for
preference-Vilidity of the order-Duty of Appellate '.l'ribunal-
.Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939).
The appellant, as well as respondents I and 2 and others,
had applied !or the grant of stage carriage permit. The Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to each of the two
respondents. The appellallt aggrieved by this order preferred
an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The
Appellate Tribunal held that the appellant should be preferred
to the Respondent No. i. Against this order the respondent
No. I preferred a writ peution before the High Court. The
High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the
ground that the Appellate Tribunal dtd not state the reason for
preferring the appellant to the Kespondent No. I.
Held that the High Court was justified in setting aside the
order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
In fact the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal did not determine the only
question which required to be determined and that was why
one operator should be preferred to another •.
Raman & Raman Ltd.v. The State of Madra• [1959] Supp.
2 S.C.R, 227, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. l 79 of 1963.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and
order dated October 23, 1962 ot the Madras High
Court in Writ Appeal No. 207 of 1962.
B. Sen, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. 0. Mathur and
Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REl'ORTS
667
A. V. ViBwanatha Sastri and R.
Ganapathy
Iyer, for respondent No. 1.
A. V. V. Nair and P. Ram Reddy, for respondent No. 2.
'
1963. May 8. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
MUDHOLKAR J.-A single Judge
of the
Madras High Court set aside the order of the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. allowing the
appellant company's appeal granting them a permit
to ply a bus on route No. 5 in Erode Town.
An
appeal preferred against his decision by. the appellant
company under cl. 15 of the Letters l'atent was
dismissed in limine. Against that decision the appelant has come up before this Court by special leave.
The
Regional
Transport
Authority,
Coimbatore invited applications for the grant of · six
permits
for stage carriage
buses for
running
Erode
Town
service. Un
route
No. 5
two
stage carriage buses were sought to be introduced.
The appellant, as well as respondents 1 and 2 and
some others, had applied for the grant of all the six
permits, including two on route No. 5.
'1 he Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on
March 16, 1961 considered the applications, granted
four permits out of six to four existing operators and
on route No. 5, which was a new route, it granted a
permit to each of the two respondents. Aggrieved by
this order the appellant preferred an appeal before
the State 1 ransport Appellate Tribunal which held
that the appellant should be preferred to the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal thus did not interfere
with the order of the Regional Transport Authority
in so far as the permit granted to the respondent
No. 2 was concerned but set aside its order granting
a permit to the respondent No. 1. Against this order
the respondent No. l
preferred a writ petition
1963
la1annath & 811n .
. ..
SowJambit•i
Mol•r S11fie1
M•i/iolkttf /.
!HS
.,_.,h /JI Bm.
v.
Jdtoilllllbig.;
Matar S11ftc1
MrU/ilJlw I.
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
before the High Court. That petition was heard by
a single Judge of the High Court and, as already
stated, the learned Judge set aside the order of the
Tribunal in so far as the appellant was concerned.
The ground on which the learned Judge set aside the
order of the Tribunal was that the Tribunal did not
state why the appellant should be preferred to the
respondent No. l in the matter of being given a
permit. The learned Judges who heard the Letters
Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant observed,
while dismissing the appeal :
"The first respondent had this advantage,
viz : that
he was given the permit by the
Regional • Transport
Authority. Before that
permit could be set aside it was the duty of the
Appellate Tribunal to have considered the
superior merit of the appellant. Jn considering
such superior merit, it was bound to consider
the prus and cons of the experience alleged to be
possessed by the first respondent as against the
claim of the appellant who puts his case only
as a new entrant. The Tribunal appears to
have taken as a rule of law that new entrants
should invariably be preferred as that would
give them an enthusiasm and also surcharge the
atmosphere with a healthy competition. But
it forgot that in all these matters, the paramount question, to be considered was the
interest of the public, and, in considering the
question, it had a duty to evaluate the rival
claims of the two operators."
Thus both the learned single Judge and the appeal
court interfered with the order of the Tribunal on
the ground that it had failed to determine a material
issue and had thus not performed its duty.
It is an admitted fact that though the appel•
lant has experience of running buses on certain routes
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
669
in the State it has no recent experience of running
buses in a town. The appellant could, therefore, be
properly regarded as a new entrant in so far as town
service is concerned. This fact has never been in
dispute. The Regional Transport Authority considered this circumstance against the appellant while
granting permits to the respondents 1 and 2. The
Tribunal, however, adverting to Government Order
No. 2265 dated August 9, 1958 and certain
tions of this Court in Raman &i Ranum Ltd. v. The
State of Madras('), came to the conclusion that new
entrants ought to be preferred in the matter of
granting permits even on town routes. The Regional
Transport Authority on the other hand felt that
bearing in mind the fact that there is considerable
traffic in towns and the roads are narrow, it is desirable to prefer existing operators to a new one. The
Regional Transport Authority also appears to have
had in mind a circular dated October 14, 1960 issued
by the Transport Commissioner in coming to this
conclusion. In that circular the Transport Commissioner appears to have placed bis interpretation on
the Government Order already referred to in which
routes have been placed in
three categories :
"short routes", "medium routes" and "long routes".
In that circu Jar the Transport Commissioner has observed : " ...... the Government are of opinion that the
town service routes should be excluded from the scope
of
routes and they should be treated as a
separate category".
Apparently, this is nothing more
than the opinion of the Transport Commissioner and
not a Government Order which requires to be given
effect to wherever possible by the Regional Transport
Authority. Thus one of the reasons given by the
Regional Transport Authority may not be correct.
However, we wish to make no pronouncement one
way or the other on this question because in our
view the Tribunal has not addressed itself specifically
to the question as to why the appellant should be
preferred to respondent No. 1.
No doubt, the
<'l [1953) Supp. 2 s.c.11. 227. 244.
/HJ
l•l'..ih Ill Bros.
y.
S_,,omhigai
Molor1 54,,, u
1963
· io1an11ath & Bro1.
' ..
Sowdtimhigas
·
Service
·,. Mudho/6ar J.
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [196!) VOL.
Tribunal has set out the qualifications possessed by
the appellant. But it has not considered whether the
respondent No. 1 does or does not possess similar
qualifications. In the circumstances we agree with
the High Court that there has been no proper determinat10n of the only question which requires to be
determined and that is why one operator should be
preferred to another.
· Mr. B. Sen who appears for the appellant
contended that the learned single Judge ought to
have remanded the matter to the Tribunal after
setting aside its order and that it could not confirm
the order of the Regional Transport Authority at
any rate without going into the merits of the rival
claims. It is true that the order of the learned
Judge is not very clearly worded. But it seems to us
that what he really meant was that the appeal should
be reheard by the Tribunal and decided in the light
of his observations. This we think should be sufficient to remove such
grievance as the appellants
may have.
The appeal is dismissed but there will
be no order as to costs in this Court.
Appeal dismissed.
----