In the year 1957 road transport was nationalised in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent and has upheld the judgment of a Single Judge of that Court by which the order of the State Government was reversed and the permits were granted to respondents Nos.
S granted one such permit each while numbere was issued in favour of respondent No.
In appeal the State Transport Authority hereinafter referred to as the STA numbered the fact that respondent No.
5 must be awarded 9 marks each as each of them had residential as well as full sector qualification.
On further companysideration of the case the RTA granted one permit to the appellant and the other to respondent No 5.
One permit was, therefore, granted by him to respondent No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated the 28th October, 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
Consequently the appellant and respondent No.
5 who was held to have an edge over the appellant for the reason that although each of them had to his discredit a companyviction for an offence under the Act, the offence brought home to the appellant was more serious than that of which respondent No.
The case was then taken up for companysideration under clause iv and out of the remaining four applicants, each one of the three present companytestants was awarded S marks, i.e., one mark for business or technical experience and 4 for residential sector qualification.
The third round of litigation took place before the State Government in revision under section 64A of the Act.
The matter was then agitated by the rival claimants in two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed before the High Court, a learned Single Judge of which held that respondent No.
The State Government held that the appellant and respondent No.
I and respondent No.
1 was a new entrant.
S did number have that qualification as each one of them was holding one such permit at the relevant point of time.
I did number hold any stage carriage permit at the time of the companysideration of the respective claims of the parties and was, therefore, a new entrant within the meaning of that expression as used in sub clause a of clause ii of rule 212, while the appellant and the respondent No.
1 was a new entrant who was entitled to preference over the other companytestants by reason of the provisions of sub clause a of clause ii of rule The other route was granted by the learned Single Judge to respondent No.
Just before that the appellant, respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
5 were entitled to preference over respondent No.
KR Chowdhary for Respondent No.
1 and the other to respondent No.
412 of 1969.
TVR Tatachari and AVV Nair for the Appellant.
I and Nagendrudu respondent No.
1625 of 1970.
1 because of their longer experience in the field of motor transport in addition to full sector qualification possessed by each of them in spite of the fact that respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J. The bone of companytention in this appeal by special leave companysists of two stage carriage permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter called the Act in relation to the route Chirala Railway Station to Vetapalem, the claimants to which number are Venkaiah the appellant , Krishna Rao respondent No.
S was found guilty.
5 held 1, 3 and 1 stage carriage permits respectively, but on nationalisation they were deprived thereof.
1 and 5.
Subsequently the appellant and respondent No.
For the two routes in question the Regional Transport Authority hereinafter referred to as the RTA companysidered the claims of 20 applicants out of which 16 appear to have been eliminated in pursuance of the provisions of clause of rule 212.
2 to 4.
l. Narayana Rao for Respondent Nos.
