K M KRISHNAN Vs. M VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed under the Letters Patent against the decision of ramachandra Iyer J. (as he then was) in two connected W. P. Nos. 651 and 1035 of 1958. These two petitions formed two out of a larger batch, all of which were filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the appropriate records and quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 13-81958 and made in R. No. 3314/a. 3/58. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions, and the two petitioners in the petitions abovementioned have filed these two letters patent appeals.

(2.) THE relevant circumstances necessary for a consideration of these appeals are briefly the following. The Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot, acting Under section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, called for applications for the grant of stage carriage permit for a particular route in the South Arcot Dt. There were 36 applications. The Regional Transport authority adopted the marking system prescribed in Government Order 1298 Home dated 28-4-1956. Krishnan, the appellant in W. A. 30 of 1961, got the highest marks, and therefore, was given the permit by the Regional Transport authority. Twelve of the disappointed applicants appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, who revised the marks and recast them , with the result that Krishnan, who got from the R. T. A. a total of 4 1/4; marks under Cols. (2) to (5) of the Government Order, got only 2 1/4 marks, and Chelliah, the appellant in W. A. 100 of 1961, got 4 1/2 marks. Under this revised marking, Chelliah would be entitled to the permit. Upto this stage, only columns 2 to 5 of the Government Order had been filled in, for the purpose of awarding marks. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal then proceeded to award marks under Column 1, which relate to building strength to viab 1 units. The direction in the Government Older for this purpose, is couched in the following language:"

(3.) THE learned Advocate General, who appeared for the appellants, did not seriously dispute before us, the conclusion reached by Ramachandra Iyer J. that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal misapplied the provisions of the government order, in the matter of apportioning marks under column 1 for "viable units. " But as pointed out by the Bench of this court in W. A. 50 and 51 of 1958 (Mad.) several interpretations are possible as to the way and the circumstances in which marks should be given under this column No. 1, and it would appear as if any of the interpretations was reasonable. The learned Judges of the Bench pointed out that even after the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court in its decision in C. A. 783 of 1957 (S. C.) the matter did not appear to be free from doubt and difficulty in particular cases, and that it was desirable that the government, who were aware of the conflicting views taken, of this part of the order, should clarify their intention and give clear directions to the transport authorities in the matter. With these observations, we respectfully agree. But, as the decisions stand at the present moment, we are bound to follow the interpretation given to the rule for filling up column 1 of the Government Order by the decision of the Supreme Court, and, as further explained by the Bench of this court in W. A. 50 and 51 of 1958 (Mad.) This would show that this is a case, where the Government Order had been wrongly interpreted and applied by the state Transport Appellate Tribunal.