Accordingly, instruction No.
The appellant then moved the said High Court for leave, but failed to secure it, and that brought him here with an application for special leave which was granted on November 14, 1963.
In that case, the appellant had challenged the validity of a Government order No.
This plea along with the other companytentions raised by the appellant failed and the learned Single Judge who heard his writ petition dismissed the petition, on October 18, 1962.
As a result, respondents 2 and 3 secured the highest marks and their appeals were allowed, the order under appeal was set aside and two permits were granted to them.
But these functions did number include the power to give orders to any Board which was seized of an application for renewal of permits.
In his writ petition the ap pellant challenged the validity of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on several grounds.
Amongst the amendments made by this Act was the insertion of s. 43A with which we are companycerned in the present appeal.
This order was passed on July 4, 1959.
Mohan Kumar amagalam, M. N. Rangachari, R. K. Garg, M. Ramamurthi, for the appellant.
692 of 1959.
3898 which had been issued by the Madras Government on December 9, 1946.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 29, 1963, of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
19 of 1964.
It appears that before the appeals were thus heard, the State Government had superseded the principles enunciated in the order in so far as they related to the grant of stage carriage permits and had issued another direction under s. 43A known as G.O. 2265 on August 9, 1958.
The appellant then invoked the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court under Art.
Incidentally, it may be added that by this order, different criteria had been prescribed for selection and a different marking system had been devised.
Ganapathy Iyer, for respondents Nos.
The State Transport Authority companysidered the said applications on the merits.
One of them was that the impugned order on which the decision of the Appellate Tribunal was based, was invalid.
1298 issued by the Gov ernment of Madras on April 28, 1956 in exercise of its powers companyferred by s. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Central Act IV of 1939 hereinafter called the Act inserted by the Madras Amending Act 20 of 1948, is valid.
This order purported to direct the transport authorities to issue only temporary permits as the Government intended to nationalise motor transport.
On June 26, 1956, the State Transport Authority by a numberification invited applications for the grant of two stage carriage permits on the route Madras to Krishnagiri.
It is with this special leave that the appellant has brought this appeal before us for final disposal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2 and 3.
The buses on this route were to be run as express service.
All these appeals were heard together by the State Transport Ap pellate Tribunal, Madras in June 1959.
March 5, 1964.
Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for respondent No.
C. Setalvad, N. C. Krishna Iyengar and 0.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J. The short but important point of law which has been raised for our decision in this appeal by special leave is whether G.O. No.
L P D 1SCI 1 a Against this decision, 18 appeals were preferred by the unsuccessful applicants including respondents 2 and 3.
C. Mathur, for Intervener.
The appellant then challenged the companyrectness of this decision by a Letters Patent Appeal No.
The appellant and 117 bus operators including respondents 2 and 3 D. Rajabahar Mudaliar, proprietor of Sri Sambandamoorthy Bus Service and K. H. Hanumantha Rao, proprietor of Jeevajyoti Bus Service respectively, submitted applications for the two permits in question.
The appellant B. Rajagopala Naidu is a bus operator in the State of Madras and he runs a number of buses on various routes.
This decision showed that there was numberauthority or right in the State Government to issue instructions such as were companytained in the said Government order.
In doing so, it proceeded to award marks in accordance with the principles prescribed by the impugned order and came to the companyclusion that the appellant satisfied the requirements enunciated by the State Transport Authority for running an efficient bus service on this long route, and so, it granted the two permits to the appellant on May 8, 1958.
The facts which lead to the present appeal companyform to the usual pattern of the permit litigation in which the grant or refusal to grant a permit is chal lenged under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.
214 of 1962.
applications were made for new routes or new timings in existing routes, then small units should be preferred to old ones.
The Appellate Tribunal companysidered the claims of the rival bus operators and allotted marks in accordance with the principles laid down by the earlier order.
2 in the said order had provided that when 1 1948 1 M.L.J. 85.
226 of the Constitution by this writ petition No.
214 of 1962 before a Division Bench of the said High Court.
