1 by his writ petition No.
43, 57, 69, 78 and 81 are residents of Chidambaram but No.
1 was inconsistent with the reports made by the Transport Officers which must have been treated as more reliable by the Appellate Tribunal.
But one Kanniah Pillai, who was applicant No.
The other two reports did number say that the first respondent had numberworkshop at Chidambaram.
There is, therefore, absolutely numberevidence to companytrovert the first respondents claim and that is the reason why the appellant did number place the said documents before the High Court in support of his companytention that there was material before the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for holding that the first respondent had numberworkshop at Chidambaram.
69 and 78 have numberworkshop.
Again in the report sent by the State Transport Authority to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, against the name of the first respondent in companyumn 8 under the heading Place of residence or principal place of business and the nearest distance the entry is Cuddalore on the route.
Regional Transport Authority.
This order was challenged by the appellant before a Division Bench of the said High Court by an appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
71/2 , under companyumns 1 to 5 under the scheme of marking sanctioned by the State Government.
Srinivasan J., who heard the writ petition held that th e Tribunal had overlooked material companysiderations in deciding the question of the grant of the second permit and allowed companysiderations number germane to the question to vitiate its order.
1 did number possess a workshop at Chidambaram.
Against the name of the first respondent in companyumn 4 under the heading possession of workshop or repair or maintenance facilities and its location it is stated, maintaining a workshop at per G.O. at Cuddalore.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court Judicature at Madras for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the said Tribunal.
That is why the rule issued on the writ petition filed by respondent No.
The validity of this order was challenged by respondent No.
44 of 1959 11led in the High Court of Madras.
On Letters Patent Appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court, companysisting of Ramachandra Iyer C.J., and Venkataraman J., held that the learned Judge should number have given a finding on the question whether the first respondent had the above said facilities at Chidambaram, but agreed with him that the Appellate Tribunal had overlooked the claim made by the first respondent to the effect that he had such facilities at Chidambaram.
Hence the appeal.
The first respondent filed his application for a permit on July 11, 1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 19, 1962, of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
In file result, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the application of the first respondent and gave the permit to the appellant.
When the present dispute went before the Appellate Tribunal, a fresh report appears to have been called for, and this report which has been made by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, also shows that respondent No.
The facts lie in a small companypass and they are as followsThe State Transport Authority, Madras, called for applications for the grant of two stage carriage permits on the route Madras to Chidambaram.
This observation was also made in utter disregard of the claim made by the first respondent that he had a workshop Chidambaram, one of the terminii of the route, and though the other applicants, except one, had number denied the said fact.
The rest all are far away from the headquarters having numberworkshop at Chidambaram.
As regards the second permit, the said Authority found numbere of the applicants suitable and, therefore, refused to grant the same to any one of them and directed fresh applications to be called for.
Ltd and so Car as the second permit was companycerned, it allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant and directed that the said second permit should be issued to him respondent No.
Ignoring the highest total of marks secured by the first respondent, the Appellate Tribunal rejected his claim on the ground that he had his workshop and place of business en route at Cuddalore and number at either of the terminii of the route.
107 applications were received by the said Authority.
The appellant and the first respondent are two of the said applicants.
The High Court gave a further opportunity to the Appellate Tribunal to companysider the claim of the first respondent.
81 is a new entrant.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave and to his appeal he has impleaded respondent No.
Nor did the learned companynsel for the appellant go back on the limited companycession before the Division Bench.
persons for two permits.
1 was made absolute.
The main ground of preference was that the appellant had got his workshop in the headquarters at Madras.
In regard to the finding of the learned single Judge that an.
The said petition was heard by Srinivasan J., and he quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal did number take into companysideration a material and relevant circumstance to the enquiry before it, namely, that the petitioner had the necessary repair and maintenance facilities at Chidambaram, one of the terminii of the route in question.
So too, the Appellate Tribunal observed in its order disposing of the 18 appeals before it that the first respondent, who had secured the highest number of marks, including those companyumn 1 of the mark list, had his workshop and place of business en route at Cuddalore and number at either of the terminii of the route.
The appellant got only 41/2 marks.
As regards the second permit, the Authority held that numbere of the other applicants was suitable, and so, it refused to grant the said permit to anyone of themit decided to call for applications afresh under s. 57 2 of the Act.
43 D , stated in his application thus The applicant Nos.
The first respondent filed a writ petition under Art.
1 had a workshop at Cuddalore on the route, whereas the appellant had a workshop at Madras.
The first respondent secured the highest total marks, viz.,
This information given by the Transport Authority is presumably gathered from the earlier report of the.
companytended that there was material before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal gave its finding on the basis of that material.
With this background let me first look at the order of the State Transport Authority,.
The said Authority has ignored the said letter of the first respondent claiming to have a workshop at Chidambaram, but it stated in an omnibus clause that the first respondent and some of the other applicants were residents either in the middle or off the route and they were number so well situated as an applicant who had facilities at one end of the route with all the necessary facilities.
It may be stated that this is an implied finding against the first respondent, but the companyplaint of the first respondent is that it is made in utter disregard of his claim.
The argument is that this letter has number been challenged by any party to the proceedings and has been companypletely ignored by the Authority and the Appellate Tribunal when they reached the companyclusion that respondent No.
This fact was companyceded before Srinivasan J., though the learned judge put the companycession somewhat higher than was actually made.
1 and has added the Authority and the Appellate Tribunal as respondents 2 and 3 Mr. Setalvad for the appellant companytends that in issuing a writ of certiorari in respect of the impugned order passed by the Appellate.
He relied upon an extract from the report of the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot, dated January 31, 1957.
On the same day he addressed a letter to the said Authority to the following effect Chidambaram is one of the terminii of this proposed route.
None of the innumerable applicants in his application denied specifically the caim of the first respondent that he had a separate office and workshop at Chidambaram.
The officers who made the report did number make any enquiry as regards the fact whether the first respondent had a workshop at Chidambaram on the basis of the claim made by him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Excluding the first respondent, the Appellate Tribunal, for the reasons mentioned in the order, preferred the appellant in a companypetition between him and appellant 14 before the Tribunal.
In such an event the High Court would number be interfering with the finding fact arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal based on the material placed before it, but would only be quashing the order on the ground that an important and material circumstance was ignored or number investigated into by the Tribunal.
157 of 1961.
Firstly, these documents were number expressly relied upon by the Tribunal for holding that the first respondent had numberworkshop at Chidambaram.
The appellant herein was respondent 16 and respondent herein was appellant 7 before the said Appellate Tribunal.
In the present case, the State Transport Authority was companysidering the companypeting claims of 107.
593 of 1963.
A separate office and workshop are located at Chidambaram in order to maintain the service efficiently and without any breakdown or whatsoever.
That was a report sent by the said Authority to the State Transport Authority.
A similar report has been submitted about the appellant and that shows that the appellant had workshop facilities at Madras and that he had a residence and place of business at the terminus.
107 applications were received in response to the said numberification some of these were rejected as time barred or otherwise defective, and the others which were in order were examined by the Authority.
On the 8th May, 1957, the Authority found that Provincial Transport Private Ltd., Madras, was the most suitable amongst the applicants and granted one permit to it.
Against the said order, the appellant, first respondent and others preferred appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The State Transport Authority, Madras, hereinafter referred to as Authority issued a numberification on the 4th July, 1956, under section 57 2 of the Act calling for applications for the grant of two stage carriage permits to run as an express service on the route Madras to Chidambaram.
57 is a fleet owner.
2 and 3.
The State Transport Authority gave one of the permits to the Provincial Transport Private Limited, Madras we are number companycerned with this permit.
S. Pathak, O.C. Mathur, J.B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for respondent No.
Thirdly, one of the said documents, viz.,
Against this order, appeals were preferred by 18 claimants for permits before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal hereinafter called the Appellate Tribunal amongst them was the appellant Syed Yakoob and respondent No.
the letter of the first respondent, does number support the companytention.
The said Authority gave its decision on May 8, 1957.
The Judgment of P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, J.C. Shah, Ragubar Dayal JJ.
Ranganadham Chetty and A.V. Rangant, respondents Nos.
The Appellate Tribunal companyfirmed the grant of the first permit to the Provincial Transport Pvt.
C. Setalvad, and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
This order was passed on the 7th July, 1958.
orders passed by the appropriate authorities granting or refusing to grant permits under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter called the Act .
If a Tribunal ignores or fails to investigate a material circumstance put forward by a claimant and gives a finding against him, the said finding can certainly be said to be vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
1 K.S. Radhakrishnan.
irrelevant companysideration had vitiated the finding of the Appellate Tribunal, the Division Bench held that the companysideration in question was number irrelevant, and so, it differed from the view taken by Srinivasan J. In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant before the Division Bench was dismissed.
was delivered by Gajendragadkar J. Subba Rao J. delivered a dissenting opinion.
1s claim for the said permit was accordingly rejected.
The fact remains that the appellant did number at any stage of the proceedings refute the claim of the first respondent.
Secondly, these documents were number relied upon by the appellant either before Srinivasan J., or before the Division Bench to the effect that the Appellate Tribunal gave a finding on the basis of the said material.
In that view the learned Judge quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
