M.H.BEG - (1.) WE will detail facts leading up to the five Civil Appeals, which were heard together, before formulating and deciding the common questions of law raised by them.
(2.) CIVIL Appeal No. 1402 of 1974 arises out of fourteen applications, including that of the appellant before us, Ajantha Transports (P) Ltd., which were considered on 29-12-1971 by the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore for the grant of a stage carriage permit to ply an additional bus on the route from Coimbatore to Sathyamangal via Koilpalayam and some other places. Five of these were rejected on the preliminary ground that the prescribed fees had not been paid. One was withheld from consideration for want of Income-tax Clearance certificate. One applicant was found Disqualified, under Sec. 62-A (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16 of 1971, because he already had more than ten permits. Out of the remaining seven applicants' the highest scorer, according to the marking system adopted by the Regional Transport Authority of the region, was one Palaniappa Gounder who obtained nine marks. But, Gounder was "bypassed" in favour of the appellant who secured 8.69 marks because Gounder had already been granted a permit on 8-10-1971. Three appeals, including one by Gounder, were then preferred to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the Regional Transport Authority's resolution. Only the appeal of P. V. K. Transports, described as "the second appellant" succeeded, although this party was awarded only 7.42 marks as against 8.69 of the appellant before us. The break up of the marks allotted, in accordance with Rule 155 (A) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, was given as follows JUDGEMENT_55_1_1975Html1.htm It appears, from the order of the State Transport Tribunal that the parties did not dispute the correctness of the marks actually assigned under various heads. The contention of the second appellant, M/s. P. V. K. Transports, before the State Tribunal, that two additional marks should also have been allotted to it for its Branch Office, was rejected on the ground that the R.T.A. had rightly refused to grant additional marks for this reason as the Branch Office had not been functioning continuously and was meant only for buses plying under temporary permits. The Tribunal then observed that, if operational qualifications only were taken into account, P.V.K. Transports had secured 6.42 marks as against 5.69 of the Ajantha Transports (P) Ltd. It pointed out that the respondent before it was given two additional marks under the heading Viable Unit' only because it had three buses running as against one of P. V.K. Transports. It set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and preferred the claims of P.V.K. Transports on two grounds stated as follows : "The R.T.A. had not borne in mind the relevant considerations under Section 47 (1) of the M. V. Act in choosing the best one for the permit. I am of the view that the claim of the 2nd appellant should be upheld as against the respondent on two substantial grounds. Firstly, the respondent was a recent grantee on the date of meeting, it having obtained its third permit on 31-7-71, about five months prior to it. The 2nd appellant's only permit was got by it on 8-12-70. As already noticed, the R.T.A. has chosen to bypass applicant No. 6 (K. Palaniappa Gounder), the top scorer on the only ground that he was a recent grantee. This is a matter for surprise as to why he did not apply the same test to the respondent, also a recent grantee. That recent grant is a relevant consideration is beyond dispute. Secondly the 2nd appellant is a single permit holder and the respondent is a three permit holder. This being a medium route, the claim of the former, whose qualifications are almost the same as those of the latter should be preferred. In W.P. No. 120|71 and 2028/71 the Madras High Court has upheld the judgment of the Tribunal preferring a single permit holder as against a two permit holder (vide also Judgment in W. P. No. 482/71). I therefore find that the 2nd appellant is best suited for the grant of this permit." The High Court Madras had rejected the Ajantha Transports' Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code which was made applicable to decisions of the Tribunal by the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 16 of 1971. It held that there was no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction since the Tribunal had based its decision on relevant considerations. Against this decision the appellant was granted special leave to appeal to this Court.
(3.) CIVIL Appeal No. 2254 of 1969 arises out of twenty one applications which came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority. South Arcot, Cuddalore, for grant of a stage carriage permit for the route from Porto-Novo to Puliyangudi. The R.T.A. rejected five applications on the ground that they were from new entrants who had no previous experience of this business. One was rejected on the ground that it was from a dissolved company. Another was rejected because the applicant was dead. Six were eliminated because of bad entries on their permits during the preceding year. Five were rejected on the ground that they had either no workshops or not sufficiently equipped workshops. Out of the three remaining applicants, one was considered inferior in merit in comparison with the remaining two, as his knowledge of the route was not so good as of the other two. The joint applicants Chettiar and another at No. 6 were preferred to Natarajan, applicant No. 13. on two grounds: firstly, the applicants at No. 6 were considered as somewhat better acquainted with the routes; and, secondly, the applicant No. 13 had secured a recent grant of a permit on another route. Hence, it was considered more equitable to drop him so as "not to inflict strain on the same operator by granting him more than one permit at a time". Against the above mentioned decision of the R.T.A., there were three appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which elaborately considered the claims of each appellant vis-a-vis the successful respondents. It preferred the claim of Kannon Motor Transport (P) Ltd., principally on the ground that it was a local enterprise of persons residing along the route. It seemed to take the view that the mere fact that Kannon Motor Transport (P) Ltd. had been granted a permit on another route at the same meeting of the R.T.A was no disqualification. It did not actually hold such a ground to be irrelevant. But. its remarks showed that a recent grant of a permit on another route was not considered by it to be really material. It, however, made it clear that the principal ground of its preference was that M/s. Kannon Motor Transport (P) Ltd. was "a local enterprise" of persons who could be expected to be better acquainted with the needs of the locality.;