What was the dispute about?

Allocation of marks for stage carriage permits and whether the Appellate Tribunal wrongly ignored the respondent’s residence mark.

What power was cited by the Government?

The marking system flowed from directions under Section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Why was certiorari under Article 226 invoked?

The respondent said the Tribunal’s omission breached Section 47(1)(a),(c) and created an error apparent on the face of the record.

What did the Supreme Court hold on ‘error apparent’?

Whether an error is apparent is a case-by-case inquiry; no single rigid test applies for High Court interference under Article 226.

Did the case remove High Court jurisdiction?

No. The Court clarified that jurisdiction depends on the nature of the error shown; facts alone do not automatically bar certiorari.

K. M. Shanmugam v. S. R. V. S. Private Limited and Others

Quick Summary

This case asks: when can a High Court use certiorari under Article 226 to correct permit decisions? The dispute arose from the marking system for transport permits issued under directions made using Section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Supreme Court said: whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record is a case-by-case call. There is no single, rigid test.

Hero image for K.M. Shanmugam v. S.R.V.S. Pvt. Ltd.

Issues

Does the High Court lack jurisdiction to issue certiorari because the alleged error is one of fact?
Were the Government’s directions under s.43A relevant, and how do they affect judicial review?

Rules

Article 226 (Constitution): High Courts may issue writs, including certiorari, for jurisdictional errors or errors apparent on the face of the record.
Section 43 & 43A (Motor Vehicles Act): Government may issue directions; marking systems can guide permit decisions.
Section 47(1)(a),(c) (Motor Vehicles Act): Factors include applicant’s residence/place of business and public interest. Ignoring mandatory factors can amount to reviewable error.

Facts — Timeline

Permit Applications: The Regional Transport Authority used the Government’s marking system (under s.43A) and granted the permit to the appellant.

Appeal: The State Transport Appellate Tribunal recast marks; it gave the appellant extra marks for a “viable unit.”

Disputed Omission: The Tribunal gave no mark to the first respondent for “residence/place of business,” effectively treating both parties as equal there.

High Court Petition: The respondent moved under Article 226, saying omission breached s.47(1)(a),(c).

Key Question: Is this an error apparent allowing certiorari, or merely a factual issue beyond writ review?

Timeline for K.M. Shanmugam v. S.R.V.S. Pvt. Ltd.

Arguments

Appellant

Any mistake is factual and within Tribunal’s domain; writ should not lie.
Government’s s.43A directions guided marks; Tribunal’s approach was within discretion.
No jurisdictional error or patent mistake on record.

Respondent

Tribunal ignored an admitted residence qualification.
That omission breached s.47(1)(a),(c)—a mandatory factor.
Error is apparent on the record; certiorari is proper.

Judgment

The Supreme Court explained that writ review depends on the nature of the error. Whether an error is “apparent on the face of the record” is not fixed by one universal test. It must be decided on the facts and record of each case. Thus, High Court jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ousted merely because facts are involved; the court must see if a patent error exists.

Ratio

No single litmus test: The presence of an error apparent for certiorari is a contextual finding. Courts examine the record to see if a mandatory factor was ignored or a patent mistake persists.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the boundary between appeal on facts and writ for patent errors.
Shows how s.43A directions interact with s.47 factors in permit decisions.
Guides High Courts on using Article 226 in transport permit disputes.

Key Takeaways

Article 226 is available for errors apparent, not routine re-appraisal of facts.
Ignoring mandatory s.47 factors can be reviewable.
s.43A directions guide, but cannot justify patent illegality.
Each case turns on its record; no one-size test.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “MAP” — Mandatory factors, Apparent error, Permits under control.

Check Mandatory: Were s.47 factors considered?
Spot Apparent: Is the mistake plain on the record?
Permit Control: Are s.43A directions applied lawfully?

IRAC Outline

Issue	Could the High Court issue certiorari for the Tribunal’s omission of residence marks in a permit dispute?
Rule	Article 226 permits writs for error apparent. s.43/43A allow directions; s.47 mandates relevant factors.
Application	Court examines if the omission is patent on the record and whether mandatory s.47 factors were ignored, despite s.43A directions.
Conclusion	No rigid formula; interference depends on the specific record. Jurisdiction is not barred merely because facts are involved.

Glossary

Certiorari: A writ used to quash orders for lack of jurisdiction or patent error on the face of record.
Error Apparent: A clear mistake visible from the record, not needing detailed evidence weighing.
s.43A MV Act: Provision enabling government directions that can include marking systems for permits.