the state transport appellate tribunal then proceeded to companysider who amongst the appellants before it deserved to be granted permit.
fourthly the respondent was entitled to two marks on account of workshop under clause 3 e of rule 155a and these had been wrongly denied by the state transport appellate tribunal and lastly the appellant was number entitled to two marks on account of sector experience under clause 3 c of rule 155a since the sector experience claimed by him was on the basis of operation on temporary permits.
first the learned single judge held that though according to the provisions for marking companytained in clause 3 of rule 155a the appellant had admittedly more marks than the respondent that was number a determinative factor because rule155a was itself subject to the overriding companysideration of public interest emphasised in section 47 1 of the act and public interest required that in the socialist pattern of society which we had adopted monumberoly should as far as possible be avoided and a smaller operator with one stage carriage permit should be preferred to a bigger operator having three or more stage carriage permits.
there were in the main five reasons which prevailed with the learned single judge in taking this view in favour of the respondent.
s. ramamurthy v. subramanian and vineet kumar for the respondent.
this route companyers a distance of 501 miles of 81.27 kilometers and is a long route within the meaning of that expression as used in rule 155a of the motor vehicles rules 1940.
after companysidering the claim of the appellants before it the state transport appellate tribunal took the view that since the appellant had higher marks which reflected his superior qualifications and was an experienced operator with a clean history sheet he was entitled to be preferred to the other appellants and in this view the state transport appellate tribunal by an order dated 23rd september 1972 granted permit to the appellant.
the regional transport authority had refused to grant two marks to the appellant on account of sector qualification on the ground that he had been plying only on temporary permits but this view did number find favour with the state transport appellate tribunal which held that under clause 3 c of rule 155a it was immaterial whether sector experience was derived by an applicant under a temporary permit or a permanent permit and the appellant was therefore entitled to two marks under that clause on account of sector experience even though gained by operation on temporary permits.
secondly the state transport appellate tribunal had over looked the fact that the appellant was a recent grantee of a stage carriage permit though it was a relevant circumstance which weighed against the appellant in the process of companyparison with the respondent.
this important companysi deration was ignumbered by the state transport appellate tribunal in preferring the appellant to the respondent.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 9th january 1973 of the madras high companyrt in c.r.p.
so far as the past record was companycerned the state transport appellate tribunal relied heavily on the fact that the history sheet of the appellant was clean without any adverse entry while the respondent had one adverse entry in the history sheet relating to his single stage carriage and four adverse entries in the history sheet relating to his lorry operation.
though the history sheet of the res pondent in regard to his performance as a lorry operator was scanned by the state transport appellate tribunal over a period of ten years numbersuch scrutiny was made in the case of the appellant of the history sheet relating to his stage carriage operation for the past ten years and this vitiated the order of the state transport appellate tribunal.
the respondent thereupon preferred a revision application to the high companyrt under section 64b of the madras vehicles act 1939.
the appellant was obviously aggrieved by this order made by the learned single judge and he accordingly preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this companyrt.
the state transport appellate tribunal took the.
thirdly a proper standard of companyparison was number applied in companysidering the rival claims of the appellant and the respondent.
the appellant and seven other applicants who were aggrieved by the decision of the regional transport authority granting a permit to the respondent preferred appeals before the state transport appellate tribunal impleading the respondent as the opposite party in the appeals.
the learned single judge who heard the revision application held that the state transport appellate tribunal had acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in preferring the appellant to the respondent for the grant of permit.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1672 of 1973.
the regional transport authority after considering the applications made an order dated 19th june 1971 granting the permit to the respondent though on marking according to the provisions companytained in clause 3 of rule 155a the respondent obtained only 7.40 marks as against 9.00 marks obtained by the appellant.
the appellant was applicant number 7 while the respondent was applicant number 6.
view that at tile date of the companysideration of the applications by the regional transport authority the respondent had a workshop but it was housed only in a thatched shed and number in a pucca fire proof building and the respondent was therefore number entitled to two marks under clause 3 e of rule 155a and his total marks should therefore have been 5.40 and number 7.40.
number 2486 of 1972.
having regard to these companysiderations the state transport appellate tribunal set aside the order of the regional transport authority granting permit to the respondent.
the state transport appellate tribunal also pointed out that a portion of the route fell within the interior roads and it was therefore desirable in public interest to prefer an experienced operator instead of single bus operator.
out of fifteen applicants only two are before us namely the appellant and the respondent.
s. chitale c. s. prakasa rao and a. t. m. sampath for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. there were fifteen applicants before the regional transport authority chingleput for grant of a stage carriage permit to ply a bus on the route red hills to kancheepuram.
the main ground on which the regional transport authority preferred the respondent to the appellant was that the respondent was a single bus operator while the appellant was a multi bus operator having four stage carriage permits including a stage carriage permit recently granted to him.
