AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.—This Civil Revision Petition comes up on conversion of the original Writ Petition No. 1044 of 1971. The
respondent applied for a variation of his route from Vellore to Pallikonda, so as to extend the same from Pallikonda to Gudiyatham. The Regional
Transport Authority, who dealt with this application, summarily dismissed the same on the ground that the respondent was not entitled to such an
extension as the length of the sector covered after the variation was not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent took up the
matter in appeal, and before the appellate authority, it appears to me, the parties had made representations not only as regards the maintainability
of the application, but also on the merits. This I say because the appellate authority went into the matter not only on the question whether the
extension was plausible under the Act, but also on the ground whether the extension was publicly needed. Ultimately the appellate authority came
to the conclusion that the respondent''s claim for extension was justified. It is as against this, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
The petitioner, who was one of the objectors to the extension claims that there was not enough material before the appellate authority for him to
undertake the investigation about the public need and ultimately to sanction the variation. His second contention is that the material on record
cannot be said to be sufficient for the purpose of appreciating whether the extension or variation could be granted. In any event, the appellate
authority ought to have remitted the subject-matter to the Regional Transport Authority for a fuller appraisal of merits and circumstances and for an
ultimate decision whether the extension should be granted.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied very strongly on the observations made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1436 of 1971. It is no
doubt true that in matters where the record does not pose enough or sufficient material which could prompt the appellate authority which has co-
extensive jurisdiction along with the original authority to deal with matters like the one with which we are concerned, the normal function of an
appellate authority is to send back the matter to the original authority for a fuller appraisal of the material and for a proper decision thereafter. But,
if the appellate authority is confronted with the position that it could act and weigh the material before it for purposes of finding out whether an
extension or variation is proper or not, then it could undertake such an investigation if it is satisfied that the material before it is adequate. Unless
there is perversity in the application of this salient rule, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, ought not to
interfere with such an assessment of material by the appellate authority, made in the peculiar circumstances under which it was called upon to
decide for itself about the necessity or otherwise of the variation or extension.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the respondent in his application has made the position clear and has made out a case, according to
him, which justifies an extension. The petitioner, who was vitally interested as an operator in the sector, opposed the same. But, the appellate
authority finds that though there were many representations to the notification issued consequent upon the application for extension made by the
respondent, yet they did not raise any objection to such an extension but only wanted suitable timings to be fixed. The appellate authority also finds
that the petitioner argued at length over the need for the extension and after hearing the parties and after considering the available material, it came
to the conclusion that the existence of the need was established. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no material at all for the
appellate authority to come to the conclusion as it did in the instant case. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that some more
material such as occupancy ratio and the necessity as such for the extension might have been gathered by the appellate authority from the Regional
Transport Authority, or the subject-matter could have been remitted to the original authority for it to appreciate the subject in the light as above.
The Regional Transport Authority indeed had an opportunity to place such material before the appellate authority. In paragraph 10 of the appeal
grounds, the appellant-respondent placed some material in support of his claim for extension. The Regional Transport Authority remarks that no
material evidence has been produced in support of the need. But, even then, he has not taken care to state that there was no public need for such
an extension or indeed it was unnecessary. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellate authority did not have sufficient material for
him to decide the matter for himself without the assistance of the Regional Transport Authority. In any event, the order of the appellate authority is
admittedly based on material placed before him and on which lengthy arguments were addressed by the parties. In those circumstances, it cannot
be an order passed by the appellate authority without jurisdiction. It is only in cases where the challenged order is without jurisdiction or one
passed in excess of Jurisdiction or irregular exercise of jurisdiction or an order which has resulted in material irregularity, that this Court normally
interferes u/s 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. I am unable therefore, to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
order suffers from want of jurisdiction.
As regards the other contention that the extended route would cover mileage beyond the prescribed distance, that has not been pressed before
me as the matter is covered by a decision of this Court.
In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.