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 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.
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.
If the first respondent had placed before the authorities companycerned the said circumstance in support of his claim for a permit and if that was ignored or number investigated into by the said authorities, the High Court would certainly have jurisdiction under Art.
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.
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.
In such an event the High Court would number be interfering with the finding of 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.
He relied upon an extract from the report of the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot, dated January 31, 1957.
With this background let me first look at the order of the State Transport Authority.
Except this vague and implied denial by Kanniah Pillai, there is numberhing on the record to suggest that any other applicant denied the claim of the first respondent.
The rest all are far away from the headquarters having numberworkshop at Chidambaram.
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.
1 K. S. Radhakrishnan.
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.
The facts lie in a small companypass and they are as follows The State Transport Authority, Madras, called for applications for the grant of two stage carriage permits on the route Madras to Chidambaram.
In the result, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the application of the first respondent and gave the permit to the appellant.
44 of 1959 filed in the High Court of Madras.
Against the said order, the appellant, first respondent and others preferred appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
None of the innumerable applicants in his application denied specifically the claim of the first respondent that he had a separate office and workshop at Chidambaram.
The report is made in respect of each one of the applicants.
43, 57, 69, 78 and 81 are residents of Chidambaram but No.
the letter of the first respondent, does number support the companytention.
The appellant got only 4 1/2 marks.
The Division Bench has held that the order passed by Srinivasan J. companyld be sustained on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal had overlooked material companysiderations in favour of respondent No.
7 1/2, under companyumns 1 to 5 under the scheme of marking sanctioned by the State Government.
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 in 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.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Madras for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the said Tribunal.
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.
That is why the rule issued on the writ petition filed by respondent No.
The State Transport Authority gave one of the permits to the Provincial Transport Private Limited, Madras we are number companycerned with this permit.
that the first respondent had numberworkshop at either of the terminii of the route.
1 and has added the Authority and the Appellate Tribunal as respondents 2 and 3.
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 them it decided to call for applications afresh under s. 57 2 of the Act.
In regard to the finding of the learned single Judge that an 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 different from the view taken by Srinivasan J. In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant before the Division Bench was dismissed.
1, and so, it has affirmed the decision of the learned single Judge on that ground alone.
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 prinicipal place of business and the nearest distance the entry is Cuddalore on the route.
A separate office and workshop are located at Chidambaram in order to maintain the service efficiently and without any breakdown or whatsoever.
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.
This order was passed on the 7th July, 1958.
Indeed, the scheme or marking system, suggested by the Government also recognizes the importance of such facilities at either of the terminii of the route.
The appellant herein was respondent 16 and respondent 1 herein was appellant 7 before the said Appellate Tribunal.
The said Authority gave its decision on May 8, 1957.
The appellant and the first respondent are two of the said applicants.
1 was made absolute.
43 D, stated in his application thus The applicant Nos.
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.
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.
The fact remains that the appellant did number at any stage of the proceedings refute the claim of the first respondent.
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.
226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the authorities and direct them to ascertain whether the claim of the first respondent was true, and if it was true, to take that into companysideration before issuing the permit to one or other of the claimants before them.
The first respondent filed his application for a permit on July 11, 1956.
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.
This fact was companyceded before Srinivasan J., though the learned Judge put the companycession somewhat higher than was actually made.
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.
Nor did the learned companynsel for the appellant go back on the limited companycession before the Division Bench.
Hence the appeal.
But one Kanniah Pillai, who was applicant No.
1 by his writ petition No.
69 and 78 have numberworkshop.
That was a report sent by the said Authority to the State Transport Authority.
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.
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.
107 applications were received by the said Authority.
Firstly, these documents were number expressly relied upon by the Tribunal for holding that the first respondent had numberworkshop at Chidambaram.
Reliance is placed upon a letter dated January 10, 1957, written by the first respondent to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, in support of the companytention that even the first respondent, though on July 11, 1956, he claimed to have had a workshop at Chidambaram, did number mention it therein.
The Appellate Tribunal companyfirmed the grant of the first permit to the Provincial Transport Pvt.
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.
The validity of this order was challenged by 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 termini of the route.
1 under companyumn 4, the report shows that he was maintaining a workshop as per Government Order at Cuddalore, and companyumn 5 speaks about the location of his residence or place of business as Cuddalore.
The other two reports did number say that the first respondent had numberworkshop at Chidambaram.
The main ground of preference was that the appellant had got his workshop in the headquarters at Madras.
In that view the learned Judge quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
57 is a fleet owner.
In the present case, the State Transport Authority was companysidering the companypeting claims of 107 persons for two permits.
Srinivasan J., who heard the writ petition held that the Appellate 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.
81 is a new entrant.
The material placed before us was number relied upon by the appellant before the High Court.
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.
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.
This observation was also made in utter disregard of the claim made by the first respondent that he had a workshop at Chidambaram, one of the terminii of the route, and though the other applicants, except one, had number denied the said fact.
But, Mr. Setalvad companytended that there was material before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal gave its finding on the basis of that material.
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 regard to respondent No.
The High Court gave a further opportunity to the Appellate Tribunal to companysider the claim of the first respondent.
1 was inconsistent with the reports made by the Transport Officers which must have been treated as more reliable by the Appellate Tribunal.
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.
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.
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 Regional Transport Authority.
Ltd and so far 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.
1s claim for the said permit was accordingly rejected.
Thirdly, one of the said documents, viz.,
