- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 10 December 1976
- Bench
- A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, V.R. Krishna Iyer:
- Result
- Appeal dismissed.
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and Motor Vehides Rules-Wheiher ,·onsidera-tion of grace, charity and compassion can be taken into account while granting permits-Whether a candidate getting lesser marks can be preferred.
The appellant and the respondent applied for a permit of stage carriages. The respondent secured higher marks than the appellant. The Road Transport Authority preferred the appellant on the compassionate ground that the res-p0ndent already had another permit on a route which was partly over-lapping over the route in question. On an appeal the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Transport Authority and granted the permit to the respcndent
Dismissing the appeal, HELD : Permits cannot be equated with distribution of patronage. ·Public interest is at stake when public transport services are operated. The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules is that he who can serve the travelling public best is t6 ·be chosen as the permit-holder. Considerations of grace, charity and compassion at the expense of public interest are an act of unfair-ness to the Act. [ 408B-C]
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
KRISHNA IYER, J.-Thi's appeal, without any merit, deserves to be dismissed without much ado.
The few facts of the case are that the appellant and the respoia-dent, both operators of stage carriages, applied for a permit on an 86 Km. route. Marks were awarded to both under the relevant Motor Vehicles Rules to settle their compara,tive merit. The ap-pellant secured 8.79 marks and the respondent 12.08. The latter thus secured an easy arithmetical victory over the former and the sense of the scheme would have ordinarily led to the award of the permit to the respondent. However, the Road Transport Authority prefurred the candidate with the lesser marks on the compassionate ground that the rival with the larger marks had already got a permit a couple of months before, on an overlapping route of 53 Km. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal set aside this award and granted the permit to the one who had more merit. This has been affirmed throughout, repelling the challenge by writ petition. The aggrieved appellant contends that his permit should not have been set aside, the ground being that the respondent had got an earlier permit on a part of the route. We are not persuaded about this ground being good.
Permits cannot be equated with distribution of patronage. We must remember that public interest is at stake when public trans-port services are operated. The ·scheme of the statute, viz., the Motor Vehicles Act is that he who can serve the travelling public best, is to be chosen as the permit holder. Considerations of grace, charity and compassion at the expense of public interest are an act of unfairness to the Act. The conclusion, therefore is that the appellant's claim was rightly rejected and i1fie respondent's award was rightly made.
We dismis's the appeal but in the circumstances without costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Q.vil Appeal No. ·424 of 197L
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 22-2-1971 of Madras High Court in W.P. No. 3125 of 1970.
Appearances
M. Natesan, and (Mrs). S. Gopalakrishanan, for !the Appellant. K. S. Ramamurthi, A. T. M. Sampath, M. M. L. Srivastava and E. C. Agarwala, for Respondent No. 1.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.