Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors.

Facts

The State Transport Authority, Madras, issued a notification on July 4, 1956, inviting applications for two stage carriage permits on the Madras-Chidambaram route. After reviewing 107 applications, it granted one permit to Provincial Transport (Private) Ltd. and rejected all other applicants for the second permit, willing to call for fresh applications. Eighteen applicants, including appellant and respondent of this case, appealed the said decision to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the first permit and awarded the second permit to appellant, rejecting respondent’s claim. Hence the respondent challenged this in the Madras High Court, which ruled that the Tribunal had overlooked important considerations and quashed its order. The appellant raised question against the High Court’s decision claiming that it overstepped its jurisdiction under Article 226 and therefore appealed before the Supreme Court.

Key Takeaways for Students

Legal Issue

Whether the High Court is empowered under Article 226 to issue writ to interfere with findings of fact made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal?

Holding

Majority – Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar The High Court made mistake in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 to affect the factual finding of the Appellate Tribunal, which had determined that respondent No. 1 did not have a workshop at Chidambaram. The High Court wrongly assumed that the Tribunal ignored respondent No. 1’s letter asserting the workshop’s existence, without considering that this claim was contradicted by other evidence, including a report from the Regional Transport Officer. The Supreme Court emphasized that certiorari cannot be used to reconsider factual findings and set aside the High Court’s order. It further held that the Appellate Tribunal’s decision though flawed but did not justify interference by the High Court since there was some material on record supporting the Tribunal’s conclusion.

Dissenting - Justice K. Subba Rao The State Transport Appellate Tribunal had overlooked a material fact—namely, the first respondent's claim of having repair and maintenance facilities at Chidambaram, one of the route's termini. The High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the Tribunal’s order and direct it to reconsider the claim. As per dissent opinion there was no flaw in the High Court’s reasoning, upholding that it had not exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the Tribunal to evaluate the matter again.

Final Decision Appeal allowed

Ratio

The High Court may interfere with a Tribunal’s decision under Article 226 only if there is a manifest error of law or if material facts were ignored.