K.M. Shanmugam v. S.R.V.S. (P) Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 1626

K.M. SHANMUGAM V . S.R.V.S. (P) LTD.

K.M. Shanmugam V. S.R.V.S. (P) Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 1626

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court had the authority to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution based on the factual error by the Appellate Tribunal?
Whether administrative instructions under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, can be grounds for quashing a decision if they are not followed?

RULE:

The question of whether an error apparent on the face of the record exists depends on the specific case, and no general rule can be established.
Certiorari is issued to correct the errors of law and ensure that the tribunals act within their legal limits without violating the principles of natural justice, but it does not permit the reviewing Court to re-decide the factual issues.

FACTS:

The Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, called for applications in respect of the issuing of a stage carriage permit for the route Tanjor- Mannargudi via Vaduvoor.
A Marking system was used to award the marks to the applicants.
The system involved scoring under the following heads: viable unit, workshop, residence, experience, and special circumstances.
The appellant received 7 marks, and the respondent received 4 marks. The marks secured by the other applicants were considered irrelevant as they were not involved in further appeals.
As per the GO, the marks awarded for ‘viable unit’ (4 marks in the case of the appellant) should only be considered if the marks secured by the other heads are equal.
The appellant’s total marks without the viable unit were 3, while the respondent secured 4 ¼ marks.
On appeal, the marks were re cast by the appellate tribunal, giving the appellant 8 marks and the respondent 4 marks. 1 mark was omitted since the respondent’s business was in Kumbakonam, not Tanjore or Mannargudi.
The decision of the Tribunal was set aside by the High Court, noting that it failed to consider the respobdents’s workshop in Mannargudi and did not give marks for residential qualification.
This was seen as a breach of Section 47(1)(a) and (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that
a) there was no jurisdiction for the writ under Article 226 for a factual error.
b) any breach of the Motor Vehicles Act’s administrative directions does not confer a right for a writ.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s power to intervene under Article 226 hinges on the presence of an “error apparent on the face of the record.”
The Court declined to establish a specific test for determining such an error, emphasizing that each case requires individual evaluation.
The Court upheld the decision of the High Court to quash the Tribunal’s order since the Tribunal had acted on a manifest error of law by not considering relevant facts regarding the respondent’s branch on the route.