SRI RAMA VILAS SERVICE PRIVATE Vs. RAMAN AND RAMAN PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals were heard together because they raise a common question of law. One of them is from the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar J. , and the other from the judgment of Rajagopalan J. Before we deal with the several contentions raised at the Bar, it will be useful to set out the facts in each of the two cases. Writ ap. No. 101 of 1958 from W. P. No. 650 of 1958 arms out of applications for the grant of a permit to ply stage carriage between Mayuram and Thiruchitrambalam. There were five applicants. The Regional Transport Authority followed the system of marking prescribed in G. O. No. 129s Horne, dated 28-4-1956 and on the basis of the marks secured by the respective applicants, granted the permit to Veerappa pillai, proprietor of Sri Sathi. Vilas Bus Service who had obtained 41/4 marks. The Sales Services and Transports (Private) Ltd Mayuram, another applicant to whom the Regional Transport Authority had awarded 1 mark, filed an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal differing from the regional Transport Authority awarded 31/4 marks to Veerappa Pillai and 3 marks to the Sales Services and Transport (Private) Ltd. Nevertheless the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the issue of the permit to the Sales, Services and transport (Private) Ltd, on the ground that Veerappa Pillai was admittedly the only operator plying three buses on the route for twelve out of sixteen miles, two furlongs and so had a monopoly over a major portion of the route and that the grant of another permit to him would further strengthen the monopoly and this would be against public interests. He concluded as follows: "i am of opinion that in order that healthy competition may be provided in the interest of the traveling public, the permit should be granted to a third person. I accordingly hold that the mark system works unfairly in the present case, and that ignoring the marks obtained by the respondent (Veerappa Pillai), the permit be granted to the appellant (Sales, Services and Transports (Private) Ltd. ")It is against this order that Veerappa Pillai filed W. P. No, 650 of 1958 praying that the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may be quashed.

(2.) WRIT Ap No. 55 of 1958 from W. P. No. 223 of 1958 arises out of applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route from Nagapattinam to tiruthuraipoondi. There were two applicants, Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. and raman and Raman (P) Ltd. The Regional Transport Authority in accordance with G. O. No. 1298 Home, dated 28th April 1956, awarded Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd, 6 marks and Raman and Raman (P) Ltd 2 1/2 marks. Sri Rama Vilas (P) Ltd. was granted the permit. There was an appeal by the other applicant to the State transport Appellate Tribunal who made a different valuation. He awarded Sri rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd, 4/2 marks and Raman and Raman (P) Ltd 1 3/4 marks. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal, set aside the grant of the permit to Sri rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. and directed the. grant to Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. on the ground that Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. was having a monopoly on the route as they were already running four buses on the same route and four more of their buses were plying from Nagapattinam to Pattukottai via Thiruthuraipoondi, and for healthy competition and in the interest of the public the permit should be granted to Raman and Raman (P) Ltd. It was contended that though Sri Rama vilas Service (P) Ltd were having a monopoly on the route, there was no evidence that they and abused such monopoly and so there was no reason to refuse the permit to them. This contention the Tribunal did not accept. He said, "i do not agree that it is only if an operator who is having a monopoly on a route has abused it, a fresh permit can be refused to him. The danger of the monopoly being abused always is there and when, that is so it is certainly not in the public interest in the present case to grant the fifth permit also to the respondent (Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd.) and to further strengthen the mono" poly which the respondent is already having over the route. The introduction of a new operator on the route in order to promote healthy competitive service will be more in the interests of the public. For these reasons I hold that this is a case where the marks obtained have to be ignored and the permit should be granted to the applicant (Raman and Raman (P.) Ltd.)" To quash this order of the Appellate Tribunal, Rama Vilas Service (P.) Ltd. , filed W. P. No. 223 of 1956.

(3.) BALAKRISHNA Aiyar J. who heard W. P. No. 650 of 1958, and Rajagopalan J. who dealt with W. P. No. 223 of 1958 both dismissed the respective petitions before them. The learned Judges held that the respective orders of the Appellate Tribunal were not vitiated by any excess of jurisdiction or manifest error of law inasmuch as the Appellate Tribunal was entitled to refuse the grant of a permit to an applicant on the ground that such a grant would give him a monopoly of transport facilities on a particular route and in the interests of the public it was desirable to grant the new permit applied for to a different operator to encourage healthy competition. The two writ appeals before us are from the judgments of the two learned Judges. We have had the benefit of the very able arguments of several learned counsel who appeared before us for the several parties.