M. Ramayya vs The State of Madras and Another

Govinda Menon, J.—This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brother Subba Rao, J., in

W. P. No. 176 of 1951 by which he refused to set aside the order of the State of Madras, dated 1-6-1951, which in its turn set aside the order of

the Regional Transport Authority, East Godavari, and granted a stage coach permit to the 2nd respondent for the route Rajahmundry to Tuni via

Pithapuram.

On 22nd June 1949, the Regional Transport Authority, East Godavari, by notification under S. 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, notified

a new route Rajahmundry to Tuni via Pithapuram, and invited applications for the grant of one pucca stage carriage permit for operating on the said

route. The appellant and the 2nd respondent herein, along with a number of other people, applied for the permit. The Regional Transport Authority

granted the permit to the Appellant, which order was confirmed on appeal, by the Central Road Traffic Board, u/s 64-A of the Motor Vehicles

Act, an application to revise the order of the Regional Transport Authority was made to the Government who set aside the order of the Regional

Transport Authority and issued a permit to the second respondent. Thereupon the appellant applied to this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari

quashing the order of the State of Madras. Our learned brother, Subba Rao, J., held that there were no grounds for interfering with the order of

the State Government and dismissed the application. Hence this appeal against that order.

A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. D. Narasaraju for the 2nd respondent that no appeal lies against an order of a single Judge either

issuing, or refusing to issue, a writ of certiorari, and that Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has no application. This is controverted by the learned

counsel for the appellant. While contending that the order appealed against should not be interfered with, the learned Advocate-General

controverts the position taken by the 2nd respondent that in matters like this no appeal lies. We have therefore to decide whether the contention

put forward on behalf of the 2nd respondent can be acceded to or hot.

The old Supreme Court of Madras, which was the predecessor of this High Court, inherited the jurisdictional powers of the King''s Bench of

England under the Charter of 1800, and as such it could issue such prerogative writs within the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court. The

view once held as laid down in ''In re Kochunni Elaya Nair'' 45 Mad 14 and ''In re Govindan Nair'' 45 Mad 922 that, this Court can issue such

writs throughout the entire ambit of its appellate jurisdiction has been held to be unsustainable by the Judicial Committee in ''Ryots of Garbandho v.

Zamindar of Parlakimedi'' ILR 1944 Mad 457 where Viscount Simon, L.C., in delivering the judgment of the Board held that the High Court at

Madras had no power to issue a writ of certiorari beyond the limits of the Presidency Town of Madras except in a limited manner as regards

British subjects. But this position has been altered by the enactment of Article 226 of the Constitution which gives power to the High Court,

throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any

Government, within those territories directions, "" orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo

warranto and certiorari or any of them. It need therefore hardly be said that this Court has got the power to issue such writs. Under Article 225 the

jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court and the respective powers of the Judges therefore in relation to the

administration of justice in the Court, including any power to make rules of Court and to regulate the suittings of the Court and of members thereof

sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution. Under this provision therefore

this High Court framed rules regulating the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution which is added as Appendix VII to the Appellate

Side Rules and is published in the Fort St. George Gazette on the 28th April 1951. Rule 4 therein is as follows:

Petition involving an interpretation of the Constitution, or questioning the validity of any Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of any State, shall

be posted before a Bench of two Judges. All other petitions shall be posted before a single Judge. Provided that the Judge may direct any petition

posted before him to be posted before a Bench of Judges.

It is in pursuance to Rule 4 that this writ petition came on for hearing before a single Judge with the result which we have mentioned above. The

learned Counsel contends that since Article 226 provides for the issuing of a writ by the High Court and since the power was already exercised by

a single Judge of the High Court in accordance with the rules framed under Article 225 the power of the High Court to Issue a writ in this case has

been exhausted and there can be no appeal to the High Court from the decision of the High Court. In other words, what he contends is, the High

Court, when once a single Judge has disposed of the matter, has become functus officio because the order must be deemed to have been passed

by the High Court as such and not by any single Judge. In this connection our attention was invited to Arts. 132 and 133. Article 132 deals with

the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases and this Article provides that an appeal shall lie to the

Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceedings,

if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and Article 133 deals with

the appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters. Pointed reference was made to Clause 3 of

Article 133 wherein it is laid down that notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to

the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a High Court. The contention that is put forward is that in the case of

ordinary civil proceedings where the judgment, decree, or final order is made by a single Judge of the High Court, there shall be no appeal to the

Supreme Court. But under Article 132 even where a single Judge decides a question which involves a substantial question of law, as to the

interpretation of the Constitution, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. Therefore the learned Counsel wants us to hold that the proceeding

regarding the issuing of or the refusal to issue, a writ of certiorari is not a proceeding under Article 133 but should be deemed to be a proceeding

as envisaged under Article 135, the residuary article regarding appealability, or might come under Article 132, and such being the case it should be

held that when an appeal lies from the decision of a single Judge straight to the Supreme Court, it will be anomalous to hold that an appeal lies to a

Bench of this Court, we have to exclude from consideration Article 132 because it is admitted that the proceedings in question do hot involve any

substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution for, If it involved, the matter would have been heard by a Bench of this Court

under Rule 4 and this vexed question regarding appealability would not have therefore arisen. Does Article 133 relating to the appellate jurisdiction

of the Supreme Court in appeals from High Court regarding civil matters include writs of certiorari where no question regarding the interpretation

of the Constitution is involved? In C. M. P. Nos. 3345, 3346 and 3347 of 1950'', to which one of us was a party, the scope and ambit of Articles

132 and 136 have been considered by this Court and the portion of the judgment relating to this aspect of the matter is as follows:

By a process of reasoning based upon necessary and explicit exclusion, if we are to consider the meaning of the word ""matter"" in Article 135, it

seems to us that the word ""matter"" used in Article 135 should not be understood as meaning a civil or criminal proceeding, because both these

subjects were specifically dealt with under Articles 133 and 134. Article 132 refers to civil, criminal or other proceeding and is all comprehensive

and therefore in whatever nature of proceedings, be it civil, criminal, admiralty, intestate or matrimonial, a question regarding the interpretation of

the Constitution arises, then an appeal will lie under Article 132. So far as other proceedings are concerned, Article 133 lays down the scope and

limit of the right of appeal in civil appeals. In the same way, does Article 134 provide for the scope and limit of the right of appeal in a criminal

proceeding? Therefore It seems to us that the matter referred to in Article 135 should be understood as meaning a matter which is neither civil nor

criminal and by the application of the maxim ''expressio unius est exclusio alterius, -- the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of

another -- it seems to us that the word ""matter"" in Article 135 should be deemed to exclude both civil and criminal proceedings.

It therefore becomes evident that if the subject-matter of a writ of certiorari is a civil proceeding, then Article 133 is the provision of law which

provides for an appeal to the supreme Court and in such a case from the decision of a single Judge of a High Court there will be no appeal to the

Supreme Court unless Parliament by law otherwise provides in such a matter. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent will apply and there will be an

appeal to a Bench from the decision of a single Judge.

We do not feel any doubt regarding the question as to whether the matter involved in this appeal is a civil proceeding or not. It is not a criminal

proceeding nor is it in the nature of miscellaneous proceedings such as matrimonial, testamentary, admiralty or other jurisdictions of the High Court.

At page 874 of Vol. IX of Halsbury''s Laws of England, 2nd Edn. it is stated as follows:

The House of Lords has jurisdiction to issue ft writ of certiorari to any Court in which an indictment has been found against a peer for treason or

felony, requiring such indictment to be removed into the High Court of Parliament ox into the Court of the Lord High Steward.

All other original jurisdiction to grant the writ of certiorari now resides in the High Court of Justice, any division of which may exercise any part of

the jurisdiction of the High Court, subject, however, to any express provision of the rules of the Supreme Court or of the Crown office.

There is a right of appeal to a Judge in chambers from the decision of a master in the King''s Bench division granting or refusing the writ of

certiorari and to a divisional Court from a Judge in chambers in the King''s Bench Division.

An appeal lies to the Court of appeal and thence to the House of Lords from a decision of a Judge of the Chancery Division granting or refusing

the writ of certiorari in an equity action or matter.

An appeal to the Court of Appeal and thence to the House of Lords lies from a decision of the King''s Bench division, granting or refusing the Writ

Of Certiorari except In cases which are of a criminal character.

When once it is conceded that it is a civil proceeding, the question may then arise as to whether it is the original jurisdiction or appellate

jurisdiction. In ''Ryots of Garabando v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi'' ILR (1938) Mad 816 Leach, C.J. and Madhavan Nair, J., at page 818

observes as follows:

Under Clause (b) a litigant has the right of appeal to His Majesty from any decree or final order passed by a High Court in the exercise of its

original civil jurisdiction. It is conceded by the learned Advocate for the respondent that the issue of a writ of certiorari means the exercise of

original jurisdiction, but he says that it does not mean the exercise of ""original civil jurisdiction"" within the meaning of the clause. The distinction here

is between ""civil"" and ""criminal."" The order complained of referred to a civil matter as opposed to a criminal matter, namely, a decision of a

Revenue Court in a revenue case. It was admittedly passed in the exercise of original jurisdiction and in the circumstances it could only have been

passed in the exercise of civil jurisdiction. Therefore It was an order passed in the exercise of original civil Jurisdiction.

Therefore, unless the matter expressly relates to criminal jurisdiction, it must be taken that the issuing of writs of certiorari will ordinarily be an

original civil proceeding. Observations of a like nature can be found at page 497 in the judgment of the Privy Council in ''Ryots of Garabando v.

Zamindar of Parlakimedi'' ILR (1944) Mad 457. In ''Hamid Hasan v. Banwarilal Roy'' 1947 2 M. L. J. 32 their Lordships of the Judicial

Committee in dealing with the jurisdiction to issue a wrt of ''quo warranto'' observe as follows:

It cannot be disputed that the issue of such writs is a matter of original jurisdiction.

Again at page 36 it is stated:

It is plain that in a matter coming before the Court on a high prerogative writ there could be no local Court having jurisdiction.

In ''Venkataratnam v. Secy., of State'', 53 Mad 979 it is observed that since the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is original it cannot be

directed against the Government. These authorities make it plain that the power to issue the Writ is original and the jurisdiction exercised is original

jurisdiction. It may be that u/s 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, an appeal lay direct to the Federal Court from the decision of a single

Judge of a High Court where the matter involved was one regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. But even in such a case it has been held

that if the appellant preferred to exercise his right of appeal to the Federal Court in preference to first exercising a right of appeal to a Division

Bench of the High Court, then he loses the right to raise any other questions which he is allowed to argue under Sub-section (2) of Section 205.

(See ''Kunwarlal Singh v. C.P. & Berar'', 1944 FOR 284 This decision has been followed in ''Iqbal Ahmed v. Bench of the High Court,

Allahabad'', 1949 FCR 813 where it is observed that the judgment of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court was capable of being challenged

in the Federal Court without taking an appeal in the first instance to a Division Bench of the same High Court. But all these would not show that

where the matter is one which comes under Article 135, the prohibition regarding an appeal direct to the Supreme Court without having recourse

to a Bench of the High. Court can be nullified. The reason for prohibiting an appeal from a single Judge''s decision to the Privy Council has been

considered in ''Hurish Chunder v. Kali Sundari Debi'', 9 Cal 482 and these observations have been followed in ''Sabapathi Chetty v.

Narayanaswami Chetti'' 25 Mad 55 . In this connection we may refer also to ''Vaman Ravji v. Naghesh Vishnu'' ILR (1940) Bom 428. We may

also refer to the circumstances that to ''Emberumanar Jeer Swamigal v. H.R.E. Board, Madras'' I.L.R (1939) Mad 904 an appeal was entertained

against the decision of a single Judge under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent refusing to issue a Writ of Certiorari and it is noteworthy that eminent

lawyers like the present Chief Justice and the late Mr. B. Sitarama Rao who appeared for the respondents did not think it worthwhile to raise even

a contention that no appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. That the order appealed against is a ""judgment"" is clear from the definition of

the word ""judgment"" in ""Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettlar'' 35 Mad 1 and we need not elaborate on that aspect of the matter any further.

It is further contended that even if the power to Issue a writ of certiorari is a civil proceeding, still it is in the nature of a revisional proceeding and

therefore Clause 15 of the Letters Patent cannot be made applicable. According to the amended Clause 15 of the Letters Patent no appeal lies

from the decision of a single Judge made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. We have already expressed the opinion that the exercise of

jurisdiction is in the nature of original civil jurisdiction and not revisional. In order that the jurisdiction should be revisional, there must be judicial

proceedings against which a revision is preferred. It cannot be said that the Government off the State, when acting or refusing to act u/s 64-A of

the Motor Vehicles Act, is acting as a judicial tribunal though the marginal note to the section refers to the jurisdiction as revisional jurisdiction. The

Regional Transport Authority and the Central Road Traffic Board cannot be called Courts of law though they exercise quasi judicial functions and

when the Government purports to act u/s 64-A either confirming or setting aside an order of the Central Road Traffic Board or the Regional

Transport Authority, it might be exercising a revisional jurisdiction but not functioning, as Court of law. The revisional jurisdiction contemplated

under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent refers to revisions from Subordinate Courts and not from inferior quasi-judicial tribunals. Neither u/s 115,

C.P.C., nor u/s 107 of the Government of India Act, 1919, did the High Court have any jurisdiction to interfere in revision against any order

passed by a quasi-judicial tribunal or authority. Such being the case, when Clause 15 of the Letters Patent speaks of an order made in the exercise

of revisional jurisdiction it can only be understood as a jurisdiction exercised by the High Court over a subordinate Court. We are therefore of

opinion that the preliminary objection is devoid of merits and should be overruled.

Turning now to the merits of the appeal, we are pressed with the argument that the State in the order of the Government u/s 64-A, dated 5th

July 1951 that the grant of the permit to question to the 2nd respondent will enable him also to have two permits on the route Rajahmundry to Tuni

via Pithapuram and therefore the appellant and the 2nd respondent who are in all other respects on the same footing will be similarly placed, is

based upon an objection not put forward before the original tribunal, viz., the Regional Transport Authority. Subba Rao, J., was of opinion that this

circumstance that the appellant was plying two busses on the route Rajahmundry to Tuni via Jaggampeta was before the Central Road Traffic

Board in the grounds of appeal. That being the case, it is not quite correct to say that the matter was then taken into consideration by the

Government for the first time. The procedure to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for state carriage

permits is laid down in Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act which should be taken to be the substantive law regarding such matters. Section 57

speaks of the procedure in applying for and granting permits. Subsection 3 of that section postulates that on receipt of an application for a stage

carriage permit from a person the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the Authority and

shall publish the application or substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in

connection therewith, may be submitted and the date not being, less than thirty days from such publication, on which, and the time and place at

which, the application and any representations received will be considered. Sub-section 4 lays down that no representations in connection with an

application referred to in Sub-section 3 shall be considered by the Regional Transport Authority unless it is made in writing before the appointed

date and unless a copy thereof is furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such representation. What is contended here is

that the 2nd respondent did not make any representation in answer to the appellant''s application for a stage permit to the Regional Transport

Authority as contemplated by Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 57 and therefore it was not competent for the Regional Transport Authority to

consider the existence of such an objection in granting or refusing to grant a permit to the appellant. If that is so, the Regional Transport Authority

should not have taken notice of such an objection. ''A fortiori'' the Central Road Traffic Board should not have considered the objection and much

more so is the Government prevented from considering the objection u/s 64-A in revision. Since the Government has taken into consideration a

circumstance which the Regional Transport Authority and the Central Road Traffic Board are prevented from considering u/s 57, Sub-section 4

the fact that the basis of the reversing order of the Government is such a new fact which it is precluded from considering renders the Order, of the

Government as one made without jurisdiction and therefore ought to be quashed. This is the gist of the argument of the learned counsel for the

appellant. Our attention was invited to Section 12, Clause (3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Kent Control) Act wherein there is a provision

that the appellate authority lifts the power to make further enquiry; whereas, under the Motor Vehicles Act Section 64 does not confer upon the

appellate authority any power other than what the original tribunal had. Section 43 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was also

brought to our notice. By it the Government is empowered to act in certain circumstances. No useful purpose can be served by comparing the

powers vested In the Government or subordinate quasi-judicial authorities arising under circumstances which are not similar to the conditions

necessary for the grant of stage carriage permits and we, therefore, do not wish to elaborate that aspect of the question. The Pull Bench decision of

the Allahabad High Court in Moti Lal and Others Vs. The Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, interpreting the various sections

in the Motor Vehicles Act and laying down that it was open to the State Government to take upon itself the task of restricting the use of highways

and other allied subjects was very much relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. Even here. It seems to us that for the decision of the

present dispute nothing much useful can be obtained from that decision. The substance of that decision is that it is open to the Government to

restrict the use of the highways by particular individuals or bodies, by which act the Government is empowered to run its own stage carriages. As

the decision in Sri Rama Vilas Service, Limited Vs. The Road Traffic Board, , was prior to the enactment of Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles

Act, we do not think it necessary to consider the points of law elaborately discussed in that judgment. It is now settled that the power of the

Government in exercising its revisional functions should not be arbitrary, wanton or ''mala fide''. The only question is whether in the present case the

Government has acted in that manner.

On behalf of the 2nd respondent it has been contended before us that there is nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act which prohibits the Regional

Transport Authority or the Central Road Traffic Board from taking Into consideration matters other than the representations contemplated by

Section 57, Sub-clause (c). In this connection we have to carefully consider the implications of Section 47 of the Act which, as we have already

stated, lays down the substantive law regarding the procedure of the Regional Transport Authority in considering the application for stage carriage

permits. In deciding whether to grant or refuse a stage carriage permit the Regional Transport Authority shall have regard to the matters mentioned

in Sub-clauses(a) to (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 47. Sub-section (1) of Section 47 is in the following terms:

A Regional Transport Authority shall in deciding whether to grant or refuse a stage carriage permit have regard to the following matters, namely:

(a) the interest of the public generally;

(b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising

from journeys not being broken;

(c) the adequacy of existing road passenger transport services between the places to be served, the fares charged fay those services and the effect

upon those services of the service proposed;

(d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service;

(e) the operation by the applicant of other transport services and in particular of unremunerative services in conjunction with remunerative services;

and

(f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or routes:

and shall also take into consideration any representation made by persons already providing road transport facilities along or near the proposed

route or routes or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or routes lie or by an

association interested in the provision of road transport facilities.

Therefore the Regional Transport Authority should consider matters mentioned in these sub-clauses before granting or refusing to grant a permit.

One of them is Sub-clause (a), namely, the interest of the public generally and another is Sub-clause (e) namely, the operation by the applicant of

other transport services and in particular of unremmunerative services in conjunction with remunerative services. In addition to the matters, the

Regional Transport Authority shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing road transport facilities

along or near the proposed route or routes, representations made by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the

proposed route or routes lie or by any association interested in the provision of road transport facilities. It is therefore clear that apart from the

objections put forward by individuals against the granting of permits, the Regional Transport Authority shall also consider these matters. In our

opinion, the consideration mentioned in Section 47 should be in addition to the objections raised under Sub-section (3) to Section 57. On behalf of

the State Government various decisions where the meaning of the expression ""having regard to"" occurring in other statutes were considered and

decided were cited before us. In ''Venkanna v. Receiver, Medur Estate'' 1 Mad L W 245 the expression ""having regard to"" in Section 40, Sub-

section 3 of the Estates Land Act had to be discussed. In this case the expression was ""due regard to the consideration in Sub-clauses (a) to (c) of

Clause (3)"", and this was interpreted by Sadasiva Aiyar and Spencer JJ. as ""not restricting the authority to the three considerations referred to in

those sub-clauses and that it does not mean that any one of the considerations is entitled to more weight than the others."" That Is, the trend of the

learned Judge''s observations is to the effect that when the authority or a Court is directed to pay due regard to certain consideration it does not

necessarily mean that such authority or Court cannot take into consideration matters other than those specifically mentioned therein. All that the

direction necessitates is that these considerations should not be left .out of account. There is no inhibition against the taking into consideration of

matters other than these considerations. To the same effect is the decision in ''Samigadu v. Srinlvasalu Reddl'' 11 Mad LW 620. Similar

observations that the authority or Court is not strictly bound to adhere only to such considerations where the expression used is ""having regard to

or ""due regard"" can be found In ''Valluri Narasimha v. Ryots of Eddamamidipalli'' 49 Mad 499 and ''Ryots of Garabandho v, Zamlndar of

Parlakimedi'' ILR (1944) Mad 457 . This aspect of the matter has been recently considered by Subba Rao J. in a ''Writ Petition'' No. 176 of 1951

on the 14th instant, and We are in entire agreement with the observations made by the learned Judge, As the matter has been elaborately discussed

in that judgment, we do not propose to restate them again. As observed by the learned Judge:

one of the principles is that u/s 47 of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority, in issuing or refusing to permit shall have regard to all matters

mentioned in the section. The section is not exhaustive. Though the authority has no jurisdiction to issue or refuse a permit without taking the

matters mentioned therein (into consideration), the section does not in terms exclude from the consideration other matters germane to the question

to be decided.

It cannot be disputed that the fact that the appellant had two stage carriage permits on the route Rajahmundry to Tuni via Jaggampet on that date

when the Regional Transport Authority considered the grant of permit, now under consideration was a circumstance existing on that date and

known to the Regional Authority and therefore could be taken by it into consideration apart from representations u/s 57(3) as well as matters

referred to in Sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-section 1 of Section 47 of the Act. If it is possible for the Regional Transport Authority to take these

matters into consideration, in our opinion, there is nothing that prevents the Government from considering them. But Mr. Nambiar argues that there

is nothing to show that the Regional Transport) Authority considered this aspect of the case, and if it did not, for the first time it is not open to the

Government to refer to a matter of this kind in setting aside the order of the Central Road Traffic Board. We are not satisfied that the existence of

a fact so well known to the Regional Transport Authority was not before its mind when it granted the permit to the petitioner. The following

observations of Subba Rao J. in ''W. P. No. 176 of 1951 from which this Letters Patent Appeal has arisen have our entire concurrence :

It is a question of fact and also of opinion in each case whether the grant of a particular permit to an individual will be in the interests of the public

or not. It may be, one tribunal may think that issuing permits to the same individual may be in the interests of the public. Another tribunal may come

to a different conclusion. The Government obviously thought that giving equal opportunities to the two competing applicants would avoid

unnecessary competition between them which ultimately might be in the interests of the public.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the action of the Government In considering the fact, that the appellant had two carriage permits between

Rajahmundry and Tuni via Jaggampeta can fall within Sub-clause (a) or (e) of Sub-section 1 of Section 47.

It is next contended that there is an obvious error on the face of the record, because at the time the Government passed the order the appellant

had only one permit, the other permit having already been transferred after the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The second respondent

contends that the said transfer was benami because the transferee is the son-in-law of the appellant. We are not called upon to decide that question

in this appeal because at the time the Regional Transport Authority passed its order, the appellant was in possession of two permits and whatever

happened subsequent to that date is not a matter relevant for consideration when the Government passed its order. It seems to us, therefore, that

the order of the learned Judge is perfectly correct and cannot be interfered with.

This appeal falls and is dismissed. Since the preliminary objection has failed we direct each party to bear his own costs.