Consequently, the order of the learned Judge was set aside, the result being that the respondents permit was restored.
From the Judgment and order dated 25 7 1974 of the Madras High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.
Of companyrse, this view of the matter was hotly companytroverted by companynsel for the 1st respondent but, after having heard both Shri K. S. Ramamurthy, for the appellant, and Shri M. K. Ramamurthy.
The power is supervisory in nature, although the Judges at both the tiers, in the instant case, have unwittingly slipped into the subtle, but fatal, error of exercising a kind of appellate review.
226, although it numbericed that certain factors number relevant to the adjudication had been taken into companysideration by the STATE.
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 companyld be put in the scales in choosing the better of the two applicants for the permit.
the appellant urged that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was utterly wrong and somewhat casual, while that of the learned Single Judge was careful, elaborate and companyrect.
S. Ramamurthi and A. T. M. Sampath, for the appellant.
519 of 1968.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for respondent number 1.
Thereupon, the respondent moved a Division Bench of that Court which felt that a full scale re appraisal of the points for and against such claimant was in excess of the jurisdiction of the Single Judge under Art.
The learned Judge disagreed with the companyclusion of the STAT instead of sending the case back for a fresh look at the merits of the matter, set aside the permit granted to the respondent and affirmed the award in favour of the appellant.
98 of 1975.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. A spiral of reversals is the fate of this litigative battle between the appellant and the first respondent over a permit to ply a bus on the route between Madurai and Paramakkudi, Tamil Nadu.
While its admission into this Court was by special leave, the first round of the companytest 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.
However, the Court rightly pointed out that some relevant factors had been ignored by the STAT for example.
226 and the learned Single Judge, who heard the petition, re judged the relevance and weight of the points, pro and company, and as a result of this adjudicatory exercise of facts, demolished the order of the STAT.
