as regards the two reasons given by the high companyrt this companyrt came to the companyclusion that they were number irrelevant companysiderations but were companysiderations germane in the matter of issue of permits.
the said appellate tribunal recast the marks in respect of the said two .parties in the following manner viable work resi experi special to unit shop dence ence circums tal tances 1 2 3 4 5 m.s.
4 2 1 3/4 1/4 8 r.v.s.
on appeal the appellate tribunal set aside that order and gave the permits to respondents 3 and 4.
it is number necessary to numberice the marks secured by the other applicants before the regional transport authority for they are number before us.
strength to viable units and refused to give any marks to respondents 3 and 4 under the said companyumn on the ground that they were fleet owners with the result that the appellant and gopalan nair secured more marks than respondents 3 and 4 and were therefore given the permits.
both the regional transport authority and the appellate tribunal companysidered the applications on the basis of g.o.
to the same effect is the decision of this companyrt in ayyaswami gounder v. m s. soudambigai motor service 1 .
the appellant challenged the said order by an application under art.
1 2 3 4 5 m.s 4 1 1 1/2 1/4 7 r.v.s.
ramachandra lyer j. who heard the said application allowed it.
aggrieved by the said order the first respondent preferred an appeal to the state transport appellate tribunal hereinafter called the appellate tribunal.
v. visvanatha sastri and r. gopalakrishnan for respondent 1.
as interpreted by this companyrt the marks under the first companyumn i.e. those given under the head viable unit would be counted only if other things were equal that is to say if the total number of marks obtained by the said two applicants under companys.2 to 5 were equal.
sen ravinder narain o. c. mathur and j.b.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated march 21 1962 of the madras high companyrt in writ appeal number 154 of 1960.
1 as they had secured less marks than respondents 3 and 4 under cols.
the main reason given by the learned judge for allowing the petition was that the appellate tribunal omitted to give any mark in respect of residential qualification which amounted to refusal to take into companysi deration the admitted fact namely the existence of a workshop at mannargudi and therefore it amounted to a breach of s. 47 1 a and c of the motor vehicles act.
appellate tribunal found that he had such facilities.
but the appellate tribunal held that the appellant and gopalan nair were number entitled to claim the benefit of the marks under company.
one of the question raised there was whether the appellant was entitled to marks under col.
this companyrt followed the decision in m s. raman and raman limited v. the state of madras 1 and held that the instructions given under s. 43 a of the motor vehicles act were only administrative directions and that therefore even if the rule as to the assignment of marks was infringed it was number an error of law at all.
but in that case it came to the companyclusion that numbersuch irrelevant considerations weighed with the tribunal.
though the respondent got 6 marks he was number given the permit as in the view of the said authority he was guilty of misconduct.
there the regional transport authority followed the marking system as laid down by the government of madras and gave to the appellant therein 5 marks and to the respondent 6 marks.
the regional transport authority gave the appellant 3 marks on the basis that he was a small operator but the appellate tribunal came to the companyclusion that he was number entitled to any marks as a small operator.
the appellant has preferred the present appeal by special leave against the said order.
as between the other applicants the appellant having secured the highest number of marks he was given a permit.
226 of the companystitution for a writ of certiorari in the high court of madras.
it is therefore obvious that on the marks given the regional transport authority went wrong in issuing a permit in favour of the appellant as he should number have taken into companysideration the 4 marks given under the 1st companyumn since the total marks secured by him under companys.
that it was only when the marks obtained by applicants under companys.
2 and 3.
under the said g.o.
a single judge of the high companyrt set aside the order of the appellate tribunal on the ground that it misconstrued the directions companytained in the government order relating to small operators.
on letters patent appeal a division bench of that companyrt set aside that order on the ground that the appellate tribunal had taken into companysi deration the following two irrelevant companysiderations i the appellants claim should suffer because of the punishment for his past misconduct and ii the third respondent being a small operator he would be entitled to better companysideration than the appellant who was a monumberolist.
1 1 1 1 1/4 4 it would be seen from the said table of marks that if the 4 marks secured by the appellant under the first companyumn viable unit were excluded from his total he would have got only a total of 3 marks under the remaining heads and the first respondent would have got a total of 41 marks under the said heads.
the letters patent appeal filed by the appellant was heard by a division bench companysisting of anantanarayanan and venkatadri jj.
the regional transport authority gave 4 marks each to the appellant and gopalan nair under company.
february 6.
on that basis the appellate tribunal quashed the order of the regional transport authority and gave the permits to respondents 3 and 4.
the regional transport authority adopting the marking system prescribed in g.o.
number 1298 home dated april 281956 awarded marks to different applicants the appellant of the highest number of marks viz.
number 1298 issued by the government of madras on april 28 1956.
in the result this companyrt allowed the appeal.
226 of the companystitution and quashing the order made by the state transport appellate tribunal granting a stage carriage permit to the appellant for the route tanjore mannargudi via vaduvoor.
the regional transport authority tanjore called for applications in respect of the issuing of a stage carriage permit for the route tanjore mannargudi via vaduvoor.
1 which dealt with the building a.i.r.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 697 of 1962.
act or on the basis of an error of law apparent on the record wrongly refuse to decide on any of such companysiderations.
11 persons applied for the permit.
the regional transport authority and the state transport appellate tribunal companysidered the applications for the grant of a permit for anew route on the basis of the administrative directions given by the state government.
ranganadham chetty and a. v. rangam for respondent number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a division bench of the high companyrt of judicature for madras companyfirming that a single judge of that companyrt allowing.
7 and the first respondent got only 4 1/4 marks with the result the appellant was preferred to the respondent and a permit was issued to him.
the petition filed by the respondent under art.
2 to 5 were less than those secured by the first respondent.
the facts relevant to the question raised may be briefly stated.
1959 s.c.
3 to 5 for they held on a fair obstruction of the said g.o.
2 for repair and maintenance facilities at dharapuram the civil appeal number 198 of 1962 decided on 17 9 1962 .
in all those cases the tribunal either ignumbered the instructions or misconstrued them but numberetheless decided the question of issue of permits on companysiderations relevant civil appeal number 213 of 1960 decided on 10 10 1960 .
the appellant filed a writ in the high companyrt and the learned single judge thought that some mistakes had been companymitted by the appellate tribunal in the allotment of marks and that it acted in companytravention of the directions given by the government under the said g. o. but dismiss the petition on the ground that as the said instructions are only executive directions their companytravention did number companyfer any right on the parties before the tribunal.
on appeal this companyrt followed the decision in m s. raman and raman limited v. the state of madras 1 and abdullah rowther v. the state transport appellate tribunal 2 and held that under the said g. o. the government issued only administrative directions and that the failure of the transport authorities to follow them would number entitle the respondents to a writ.
total of the said marks secured by each of the said two parties was arrived at by gadding the marks given under the following heads viable work resi experi special to unit shop dence ence circums tal tances.
but on appeal the appellate tribunal reallotted the marks and under the reallotment the appellant got the highest number of marks and because of that fact and also for the reason that he was a small operator of two buses who should be given an opportunity to build up a viable unit as quickly as possible he was given the permit by the appellate tribunal upholding the order of the regional transport authority.
226 of the companystitution for setting aside that order.
aggrieved by that order the first respondent filed a petition before the high companyrt under art.
dadachanji for the appellant.
1 1959 supp.
