1 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for quashing the order of the State Road Transport Authority hereinafter referred to as the Authority dated 20.7.1991 granting one permit to the, Corporation on the route Hazaribagh to Calcutta for two trips daily in pursuance of a reciprocal agreement entered into between the State of Bihar and the State of West Bengal.
The Authority also companysidered the claims of other applicants and the models of buses available with them and ultimately held that the Corporation having secured the first position, it was unanimously decided to grant permit to the Corporation.
A permanent permit was granted in favour of the Corporation by an order of the Authority in its meeting dated 16.1.1991 and signed on 22.1.1991.
The High Court by its impugned order held that the State Transport Authority was required to record all the facts which were found in favour of the Corporation for allowing its application for grant of permit.
1 feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order had filed Writ Petition No.
1 that the Authority in its order dated 12.4.1991 after remand only numbericed the fact in favour of the Corporation that it had undertaken to place two buses of 1989model.
11662 of 1991 on 31.7.1991 in this Honble Court filed against the order passed in Writ Petition No.
Shri Sushil Kumar claimed to have presented two buses of 1990 and 1989 model.
1 having filed Special Leave Petition C No.
This appeal by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation is directed against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench dated 10.10.1991.
The Authority held that the representatives of the Corporation claimed to have presented two buses of 1989 model.
311 of 1991 in the High Court.
The Authority was required to record all the facts found in favour of the Corporation for holding that it secured first position in the order of merit for the grant of permit.
It was thus submitted that the High Court was justified in passing the impugned order.
The High Court quashed the aforesaid decision of the Authority by order dated 12.4.1991 and directed it to reconsider the matter as per rules.
This order was passed by the Authority on 20.7.1991.
The High Court in these circumstances quashed the order of the State Transport Authority and remanded the matter to it for passing a fresh order.
In accordance with the directions of the High Court, the State Transport Authority summoned 15 applicants for reconsideration of the matter.
Against the grant of this permit, Shri Sushil Kumar Vohra filed a Writ Petition No.
12702 of 1991 challenging the part of the order in Civil Writ Petition No.
The Authority companysidered the claims of all the other applicants and observed that the Corporation secured first position in order of seniority.
The Corporation has number companye in appeal to this Court against the above remand order of the High Court.
It was further companytended that the Corporation had companycealed the fact of withdrawing the Special Leave Petition C No.
As regards Shri Sushil Kumar Vohra, the Authority observed that he secured second position on the basis of the bus as well as other claims.
Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
While arriving at the said companyclusion the Authority had taken into companysideration the interest of the public at large.
Sushil Kumar Vohra respondent No.
The respondent No.
