B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal

This case checks if the State could issue a scoring policy (G.O. 1298) for bus permits under Section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

The Supreme Court said: permit decisions by transport authorities are quasi-judicial. A policy cannot control their mind. So, G.O. 1298 was ultra vires and invalid.

Result: The Appellate Tribunal’s order based on that policy could not stand. Article 226 review applies to such decisions.

• Was G.O. 1298 valid under Section 43A?
• Are permit decisions administrative or quasi-judicial?
• Can courts review these decisions under Article 226?

• Quasi-Judicial Nature: Permit allocation needs hearing, reasons, and fair balancing; it is not mere administration.
• Article 226 Review: High Courts may review legal errors in tribunal decisions.
• Ultra Vires Check: Government directions cannot replace independent judgment of the authority.
• Separation of Functions: Policy guidance is allowed; binding scoring for decisions is not.

The Supreme Court held that G.O. 1298 is invalid. It overstepped Section 43A by dictating how to award marks and how to choose permit-holders.

Such directions intruded into a quasi-judicial field. Therefore, the Tribunal’s order based on that policy was set aside.

• Transport permit allocation is a quasi-judicial function.
• Government may issue guidance, not binding score-lines that replace discretion.
• Tribunal decisions using such binding policies are open to Article 226 review and can be quashed.

This case draws a clear line: policy cannot pre-judge a tribunal’s decision. It protects fairness in licensing and prevents “one-size-fits-all” scoring from replacing judicial reasoning.

• Guidelines ≠ hard rules for tribunals.
• Article 226 guards against policy overreach.
• “Ultra vires” invalidates downstream orders.
• Case-by-case reasoning stays central.

Mnemonic: NAIDU = No Automatic Instructions Dictating Use

1. No Automatic: Fixed marks cannot run the show.
2. Instructions: Guidance is fine; control is not.
3. Dictating Use: Tribunals must use their own judgment.

Quasi-judicial

Decision needs hearing, evidence, and reasons like a court.

Ultra vires

Beyond the legal power given by the statute.

Article 226

Power of High Courts to issue writs and review legal errors.

Section 43A (MVA 1939)

Provision used to issue directions; not to control tribunal discretion.