This order was challenged by the three applicants whose applications for permit had been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority.
Respondents 2 and 3 are State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and the Regional Transport Authority respectively and they have been impleaded because the order passed by respondent No.
The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal shows that though as a result of the marks assigned by it to the respective applicants, the appellant and Raman and Raman P Ltd. secured 4 marks each and the two other companypetitors 31/2 and 3 1/4 marks respectively, the Appellate Tribunal took the view that the appellant was a monopolist over a distance of 18 miles which was a part of the route in question, whereas Raman Raman P Ltd. had a near monopoly or predominant influence over the remaining part of the distance which was 16 miles, and so, it rejected the application for a permit made by the appellant and Raman Raman P Ltd. and granted the permit to respondent No.
In the result, the order passed by Srinivasan J. was reversed and the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
The Regional Transport Authority companysidered the merits of these four applicants and assigned them marks as a result of which a permit was granted to the appellant on the ground that it got the highest number of marks.
226 of the Constitution.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 26, 1963, of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
2 was questioned in the writ proceedings and is the subject matter of the present appeal.
The Division Bench has taken the view that having regard to the reasons given by the Appellate Tribunal in support of its companyclusion that the appellant was number entitled to a permit, Srinivasan J. was number justified in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to this Court in appeal.
Accordingly, a writ of certiorari was ordered to be issued as prayed for by the appellant.
Srinivasan J. who heard the writ petition came to the companyclusion that the Appellate Tribunal had signally failed to companysider the relevant evidence, and so, this order needed to be companyrected by a writ of certiorari.
25 of 1959 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
20 of 1962.
1 C. Chandrasekaran.
S. Pathak, K.K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
It appears that the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur called for applications for the grant of one stage carriage permit between Mannargudi and Nagapattinam.
The distance between these two places is 34 miles.
C. Setalvad, J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent No.
It is against this order of the Appellate Tribunal that the appellant preferred a writ petition before the Madras High Court No.
December 9, 1963.
1015 of 1963.
They were the appellant, Raman Raman P Ltd., Balasu brahmanya Udayar, and respondent No.
This order was challenged by respondent No.1 by preferring on appeal under the Letters Patent before a Division Bench of the said High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This appeal has been brought to this Court by special leave and it has been filed against the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court by which the order passed by a learned single Judge of the said High Court directing the issue of a writ of certiorari in favour of the appellant Sri Rama Vilas Service P Ltd. has been reversed.
Four applicants applied for a permit on this route.
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras hereinafter called the Appellate Tribunal companysidered the merits of the four applicants for itself, assigned them marks and ultimately came to the companyclusion that the appellant was number entitled to a permit.
