Raman & Raman Ltd. Vs. The State of
Madras & ANR [1956] INSC 22 (15 March 1956)
IMAM, SYED JAFFER AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA
BOSE, VIVIAN JAGANNADHADAS, B.
SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.
CITATION: 1956 AIR 463 1956 SCR 256
ACT:
Road Transport-Power of the State Government
to set aside orders of subordinate authorities-High Court's power to interfere
by writ of certiorari-Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), as amended by the Motor
Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act (XX of 1948), s. 64-A Constitution of India,
Art. 226.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant and respondent No. 2 along with
others applied for stage-carriage permits for two routes and the Regional
Transport Authority granted a permit for one route to the appellant and for the
other route to the respondent No. 2.
Both appealed to the Central Road Traffic
Board but the appeals were dismissed. Neither the Regional Authority nor the
Board recorded any finding as to which of them had the better facilities for
transport operation or that they were of equal merit. They applied to the State
Government under s. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 as amended by the
Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act of 1948 and the State Government set
aside the orders passed by the said subordinate authorities and issued permits
for both the routes to the respondent No. 2 on the ground that he had better
facilities for operation and would serve the public better.
Against this order of the State Government
the appellant moved the High Court for a writ of certiorari and a single Judge
issued the writ. On a Letters Patent appeal that decision was set aside. The
appellant contended that the State Government had acted in excess of its powers
under s. 64-A of the Act in setting aside the orders of the subordinate authorities
and that the section itself was invalid.
Held, that the State Government was within
its powers in passing the order it did and the appeal must be dismissed.
That it was within the competence of the
State Legislature to insert s. 64-A into the Act and its legality could not be
questioned and the clear intention of the legislation was to empower the State
Government to decide the legality, regularity or propriety of any orders passed
by the subordinate authorities in the interest of the general public.
That the State Government was the final
authority to decide which of the rival applicants had the better facilities for
operation of the bus service and where it bad come to a decision in favour of
an applicant, its decision could not be interfered with under Art. 226 of the
Constitution merely because its view might be erroneous.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1 of 1956.
On appeal from the judgment and order dated
the 2nd/21st day of September 1955 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
65 of 1955 arising out of the order dated the 5th day of May 1955 of the said
High Court in Writ Petition No. 158 of 1955.
G.S. Pathak, B. Ganapathy Iyer and G.
Gopalakrishan, for the appellant.
M. O. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, B.K.B.
Naidu and Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 2.
1956. March 15. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by IMAM J.-This appeal comes before us on a certificate granted by
the Madras High Court that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court as
it involved two important questions, namely, the powers of the Government under
section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the Motor Vehicles
(Madras Amendment) Act, 1948 for the State of Madras (hereinafter referred to
as the Act), to interfere with the orders of subordinate Transport Authorities
on the ground of propriety and the limits of judicial review which the courts
have under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The appellant and respondent No. 2, had
applied for stage carriage permits in the Mayuram Town Service for routes Nos. 1
and 2. These applications, along with others, were considered by the Regional
Transport Authority, Tanjore. By its order dated the 31st of May, 1954, it
granted a permit for route No. 1 to the appellant and for route No. 2 to
respondent No. 2. Both the appellant and respondent No. 2 being dissatisfied
appealed under section 64 of the Act to the appropriate authority, the Central
Road Traffic Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), but the appeals were
dismissed by its order dated the 18th of August, 1954. As section 64-A
conferred upon the State Government certain powers, which have 258 been
described in this case as revisional powers, the appellant and respondent No. 2
filed representations there under before the State Government against the
orders of the Regional Transport Authority and the Board. The State Government
set aside the orders passed by the aforesaid authorities and directed that
permits for both the routes Nos. 1 and 2 be issued to respondent No. 2. Against
this order, the appellant filed an application under article 226 of the
Constitution in the High Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari. The
application was heard by a single Judge who issued the requisite writ. Against
his decision there was a Letters Patent appeal by respondent No. 2, which was
allowed and the decision of the single Judge was set aside.
The ground upon which the Regional Transport
Authority granted the appellant and respondent No. 2 permits for routes Nos. 1
and 2 respectively was that they were experienced and were operating town buses
at Kumbakonam.
This opinion was approved by the Board which
also thought that a certain amount of healthy competition was required in the
Mayuram Town routes. It also considered that the Regional Transport Authority
was within its rights in not considering the aspect of sector coverage by
muffassil buses of the appellant and respondent No. 2. It appears that respondent
No. 2 was covering the entire route No. 1 and the appellant was covering a
portion of route No. 2. The State Government in setting aside the orders of the
Regional Transport Authority and the Board passed the following order:
"As between the claims of Sri Raman
& Raman Ltd. and Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service, the Government consider that
it will be in the interest of the public to grant both the permits to Sri Sathi
Vilas Bus Service, Poryar, since he has better facilities for operation and will
be able to serve the public better. The Government of Madras therefore sets
aside as improper the order of the Central Road Traffic Board No. R 27792/A2/54
dated the 18th of August, 1954 in so far as it confirms the order of the
Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore granting one permit of route 259 No. 1 to
Sri Raman & Raman Ltd. and directs that the two permits in question be
granted to Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Poryar".
Before dealing with the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant, it would be desirable to make reference to certain
provisions of the Act concerning the grant of permits. Section 42 of the Act
prohibits an owner of a transport vehicle from using or permitting it to be
used in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit
granted by a Regional Transport Authority. Section 43 gives certain powers to
the State Government to control road transport. Section 44 authorises the State
Government to constitute a State Transport Authority as well as a Regional
Transport Authority to perform certain functions mentioned therein. Section 47
sets forth certain matters which a Regional Transport Authority shall bear in
mind in deciding to grant or to refuse a stage carriage permit.
Section 64 enables a person aggrieved by the
order of the Regional Transport Authority, with respect to matters mentioned
therein, to appeal to the prescribed authority.
Section 64-A states: "The State
Government may, of its own motion or on application made to it, call for the
records of any order passed or proceeding taken under this Chapter by any
authority or officer subordinate to it, for the purpose of satisfying itself as
to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding and after
examining such records, may pay pass such order in reference thereto as it
thinks fit".
Mr. Pathak, for the appellant, contended that
having regard to the terms of section 64-A, there were two stages for the
exercise of power there under by the State Government. The first stage was the
condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction for the exercise of that
power. A collateral fact had to be decided, namely whether the order passed by
any authority or officer subordinate to the State Government was in fact
illegal, irregular or improper. If the decision was in the affirmative, then
and then only would the State Government have jurisdiction to revise the 260
order complained against. The decision of the State Government both with
respect to questions of fact and law could be examined by a court in a proceeding
for the issue of a writ of certiorari and such court in doing so could decide
whether the order which was revised by the State Government was or was not
illegal, irregular or improper.
In the present case, there was no question of
illegality or irregularity in the orders of the Regional Transport Authority
and the Board. The only question was as to whether these orders were improper.
The propriety of an order does not necessarily mean that it must be correct
order. There must be something extraneous to the order itself which made it
improper. Merely because the State Government took a different view of the
facts to that of the authority or officer subordinate to it would not make the
order of such authority or officer improper. The second stage, namely, the
passing of an order as the State Government thought fit, 'could only be reached
after a decision had been arrived at on the condition precedent conferring
jurisdiction on the State Government to revise an order. The substantial ground
upon which the State Government revised the order of the authority subordinate
to it was that respondent No. 2 had better facilities for operation and would,
therefore, be able to serve the public better. The authorities subordinate to
the State Government, however, had the representations of the appellant and
respondent No. 2, as well as other applicants, which fully stated all material
particulars in this respect and it could not be said that these matters were
not considered by them. The orders of the subordinate authorities accordingly
must be read to mean that as between the appellant and respondent No. 2 both
bad equal facilities for operation and that things being equal between them in
every way, one permit should be granted for one route to the appellant and
another for another route to respondent No. 2.
There could be nothing improper in this. The
condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to revise the order was
therefore absent and the State Government acted in excess of its 261
jurisdiction in revising the orders of its subordinate authorities.
Mr. Pathak further contended that there was
an error on the face of the record in the order passed by the State Government
as it had refused to consider seniority or experience in motor transport as a
factor for the granting of a permit and it thought that it could come to any
conclusion it liked and reference was made to paragraph 8 of the affidavit
filed on behalf of the State Government in the High Court. On the basis of that
affidavit and that paragraph, it was also urged that the error on the face of
the record was that the Government acted on an erroneous idea of its own
jurisdiction.
He further contended that section 64-A was an
invalid provision.
In the alternative, he urged that a court or
authority, in the exercise of its revisional powers, cannot take a contrary
view of the facts to that taken by the subordinate court or authority. Exercise
of such revisional power could only be made in cases where the subordinate
court or authority had taken a perverse view of the facts and had arrived at a
conclusion which no reasonable person could have arrived at.
In support of his first contention, Mr.
Pathak relied upon Paragraph 116 at page 59 of Halsbury's Laws of England,
third edition, Vol. 11. It appears from an examination of that paragraph and
paragraph 117 at page 60 of the same Volume that there may be cases where the
jurisdiction of an inferior tribunal may depend upon the fulfillment of some
condition precedent or upon the existence of some particular fact. Such a fact
is collateral to the actual matter which the inferior tribunal has to try, and
the determination of whether it exists or not is logically and in sequence
prior to the determination of the actual question which the inferior tribunal has
to try. In such a case, in certiorari proceedings, a court can enquire into the
correctness of the decision of the inferior tribunal as to the collateral fact
and may reverse that decision if it appears to it, on the 262 materials before
it, to be erroneous. There may be tribunals, however, which, by virtue of
legislation constituting them, have the powers to determine finally the
preliminary facts on which the further exercise of their jurisdiction depends.
With respect to them, in such cases, their decision even if wrong on facts or
law cannot be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In cases where the fact in
question is a part of the very issue which the inferior tribunal has to enquire
into, a court will not issue a writ of certiorari, although the inferior
tribunal may have arrived at an erroneous conclusion with regard to it. In the
present case, if there was at all any collateral fact to be decided, it was
whether the appropriate authority had in fact passed any order in respect of
which powers under section 64-A could be exercised. It is not disputed that in
fact orders were passed by the Regional Transport Authority and the Board,
authorities subordinate to the State Government, and that these orders existed
when the appellant and respondent No. 2 moved that Government to exercise its
powers under section 64-A. The condition precedent and the existence of a
collateral fact in that way for the exercise of powers under that section were
therefore present when the State Government exercised its powers. In order to
satisfy itself whether the order of an authority subordinate to it was legal,
regular or proper, the State Government was not deciding the existence of a
collateral fact but the issue itself as to the legality, regularity or the
propriety of the order. The satisfaction of the State Government in this
respect would be an expression of its opinion and not the determination of a
fact upon which depended its jurisdiction to exercise its powers under section
64-A.
What is the nature of the functions performed
under the Act by the Regional Transport Authority, the Board and the State
Government in the matter of granting or refusing to grant a permit may now, be
considered. That they are not judicial is accepted, but, it is said, they are
not administrative but quasi-judicial and therefore amenable to the
jurisdiction of 263 a court possessing the power to issue a writ of certiorari.
In proceedings under sections 47, 64 and 64-A
of the Act there is no determination of any individual's rights and from that
point of view the functions of these authorities may be regarded as executive
or administrative. On the other hand, it may be said that a person has the
fundamental right to carry on his business of plying buses and therefore has
the right to have the statutory functions of these authorities properly
exercised in which case they would be quasi-judicial functions. Assuming this
to be so, it has yet to be seen whether the State Government acted in excess of
its legal authority. Chapter IV of the Act contains provisions concerning the
control of transport vehicles.
The Act authorises the State Government to
constitute a State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities, and
under section 43, subject to its provisions, it can control road transport. In
the first instance, the authority to grant or refuse to grant a permit is
vested in the Regional Transport Authority, but its order is not final as a
dissatisfied party can appeal against the order under section 64 to the
appropriate authority. Before section 64-A was inserted into the Act by an Act
of the legislature of the State of Madras, it might have been possible to
contend that the order of a Regional Transport Authority which bad not been
appealed against and the order of the appropriate authority under section 64,
where an appeal bad been made, were incapable of interference by the State
Government for lack of statutory authority. By enacting section 64-A, the
legislature clearly intended that should not be so and that the State
Government should have the powers to intervene, if it was satisfied that the
order in question was either illegal, irregular or improper. In clothing the
State Government with such power the legislature clearly intended the State
Government to decide the issue as to whether any order in question was illegal,
irregular or improper. It would not be open to a court exercising the power of
certiorari to intervene merely because it might be of the opinion that the view
taken 264 ] by the State Government was erroneous.
The word "propriety" has nowhere
been defined in the Act and is capable of a variety of meanings. In the Oxford
English Dictionary (Vol. VIII), it has been stated to mean.
"fitness; appropriateness; aptitude
suitability;
appropriateness to the circumstances or
conditions;
conformity with requirement, rule or
principle; rightness, correctness, justness, accuracy". If the State
Government was of the opinion that respondent No. 2 had better facilities for
operation than the appellant and their service to the public' would be more
beneficial, it could not be said that the State Government was in error in
thinking that the order of the Board confirming the order of the Regional
Transport Authority was improper. It is to be remembered that under section 47
of the Act a Regional Transport Authority in deciding whether to grant or to
refuse a permit shall have regard, amongst other things, to the interest of the
public generally and the advantages to the public of the service to be
provided. Assuming that in the matter of experience there was nothing much to
choose between the appellant and respondent No. 2, better facilities for
operation of the bus service possessed by respondent No. 2, would be to the
interest of the public generally and an advantage to the public Of the service
to be provided and therefore was an overriding factor when other things were
equal. As between the appellant and respondent No. 2 neither the Regional
Transport Authority nor the Board recorded a finding as to which of them had
the better facilities for transport operation or that such facilities as
existed between them were of equal merit. The State Government did not have,
therefore, the advantage of knowing, on the face of the orders of these
authorities, what view they took of this matter. Even if it is assumed that
their orders meant that the facilities for operation as between the appellant
and respondent No. 2 were of equal merit, still the State Government was not in
a position to know on what material this opinion was based or that it was a
reasonable view. In order to satisfy itself the State 265 Government examined
the materials available to it and came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2
bad the better facilities, in other words, it would be unreasonable to hold
that respondent No. 2 had not the better facilities. The learned single Judge.
of the High Court more than once held that he could not find that there was no
material before the State Government to justify its finding that respondent No.
2 had the better facilities, and he further held that was a factor which
restricted the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the
Constitution. That should have concluded the matter so far as the High Court
was concerned.
He, however, thought that it could not be
said that the conclusion reached by the State Government was the only
conclusion possible and a mere disagreement on the conclusions to be drawn from
the available materials, where either view was a reasonable one, was not enough
to establish that the orders passed by the Board and the Regional Transport
Authority were improper within the meaning of section 64-A. The State
Government had therefore acted in excess of its jurisdiction,. It seems to us,
that the order of the State Government as it stands cannot be said to be in
excess of its jurisdiction nor can it be said that in recording a finding that
respondent No. 2 had the better facilities for operation and would serve the
public better, it went beyond its powers, in the absence of a finding to the
contrary by the authorities subordinate to it. The interests of the public and
the advantages to it of the service to be provided were very, it not the most,
important factors to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting or
refusing to grant a permit. In the conflicting claims of the appellant and
respondent No. 2 concerning the facilities available to them for operation of
the bus service, the State Government was bound to decide, in the interests of
the public generally, which of these had the better facilities. It was within
the scope of it's authority to decide this and a court in certiorari
proceedings ought not to interfere with that decision. To hold that the opinion
of the Regional Transport Authority and the 266 Board that the facilities for operation
were equal as between these persons was a reasonable view would be to
constitute the court as the final authority in a matter, in which, by the
provisions of the Act, that function was accorded to the State Government. We
are not prepared therefore to say that the State Government acted in excess of
its statutory authority.
There is no error on the face of the record
so far as the order of the State Government is concerned and reference to
paragraph 8 of the State Government's affidavit in the High Court does not
establish any such thing. That paragraph was in answer to paragraphs 13 and 14
of the appellant's affidavit and it set out the contentions of the State
Government as to its powers. There is nothing in that paragraph to establish
that in fact the State Government had declined to consider seniority or
experience in the matter of selection.
No substantial ground was put forward for
supposing that section 64-A was an illegal provision. It was within the
competence of the State Legislature to insert section 64-A into the Act. It was
a reasonable provision in keeping with the entire scheme of the Act concerning
transport vehicles and control of road transport.
As to the extent of powers of revision in a
court or authority we do not intend to express any opinion in this case having
regard to the view we take that the order of the State Government cannot be
interfered with by the issue of a writ of certiorari.
As regards the limits of judicial review
which the courts have under article 226 which is one of the grounds on which
the certificate was issued by the High Court, that question has since been
considered in the various decisions of this Court, which do not require
recapitulation.
In our opinion, this is not a case in which
it would be reasonable to hold that the State Government acted in excess of its
jurisdiction. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs to be paid to
respondent No. 2.
Back