It was observed that one of the substantial grounds for the grant was that the respondent was the most qualified medium route operator.
The Regional Transport Authority directed the grant of one permit each on two out of six routes to the respondent.
1792 of 1966 decided on 27 August, 1969 .
The appellant filed an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal referred to the fact that the appellant was a four pen nit holder and on that basis the State Transport Appellate Tribunal gave the appellant one mark and said that the appellant was the only qualified medium route operator.
2265 dated 9 August, 1958 and incorporates the same as a part of the speaking order in the determination of the companytroversy.
The learned Single Judge held that though the State Transport Appellate Tribunal gave preference to the appellant because he was a medium operator the Tribunal gave certain additional reasons for the grant of permit to the appellant.
It is manifest that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal number only referred to the Government Order as indicating the basis for giving preference for the grant of permits but also applied the Government Order in assessing the companypeting claims of the companytenders for permits.
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the grant of two permits to the respondent and directed the grant of one to the appellant and the other to another appellant before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
1107 The order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal specifi cally mentions the Government Order No.
2265 dated 9 August,1958 was held invalid by this Court in R. Lakshminarayanan.
The High Court accepted the appeal.
The relevant Government Order No.
The respondent took up the matter on appeal.
The reason given by the High Court was that the Government Order entered into tile decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as a major factor in the decision.
The, appellant and the respondent applied to the Regional Trans port Authority for the grant of six stage carriage permits.
The respondent alleged to have maximum operational companymunication.
or more buses.
The High Court quashed the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal because the Government Order entered into the decision of the Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A. No.
The learned Single Judge held that a mere reference to the Government Order companyld number be magnified reasonably into a principal ground on the basis of which the Tribunal reached the companyclusion in favour of the appellant.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras.
v.T. H. Vythilingam Pillai Anr.
K. Ramamurthy and Satroja Gopalakrishnan, for the res pondent.
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal companysidered the ,appellant to be the only qualified medium route operation.
1106 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 11 August, 1964 of the High Court of Madras reversing the decision of the learned single Judge.
Among the various grounds on which the respondent impeached the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal it .,was said that the Tribunal overlooked the superior claims of the appellant by treating the preference mentioned in the Government Order as an absolute preference.
1057 of 1967.
126 of 1963.
Civil Appeal No.
L. Sanghi, D. N. Misra, for the appellant.
Madras and directed the Appellate Tribunal to determine the question of grant of permit outside the ambit of the impugned Government Order No.
The High Court issued a writ quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The Government direction was that preference will be given for short routes to new entrants and for medium routes to applicants with one.
2265 dated 9 August, 1958.
