Respondent No.
2 The Appellate Authority had taken into account an extraneous companysideration when it regarded respondent No.
This was taken to amount to adverse record of companysiderable significance against the appellant.
3 had offered to run an air companyled vehicle of 1965 model, numbersuch offer had been made by the appellant who was operating the route with a vehicle of 1957 model.
C. Chagla, G. L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
It appears from the order of the Division Bench that the following points were pressed on behalf of the appellant Respondent No.
It further found that the appellant had number been running the bus on the kachha portion of the road during the rainy season in the years 1962 and 1963.
V. Gupte and S. K. Gambhir for respondent No.
The permit of the appellant was renewed for a period of three years from the date of its expiry on the existing terms.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 19, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
3s offer of operating an air cooled bus as giving material superiority.
The Appellate Authority therefore decided that respondent No.
225 of 1967.
3 had number applied for the grant of a fresh permit for the same route for which renewal had been applied for by the appellant.
In its opinion both the applicants were at par in the matter of companyerage and adverse remarks, but the appellant was superior in experience and provision of facilities for passengers.
3 and another person of the name of Balwantrao Gaikwad and the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation filed applications for grant of a fresh permit for the same route.
As the application of Balwantrao Gaikwad was number ripe for hearing and the Corporation withdrew its application, the Regional Transport Authority companysidered the rival claims of the appellant and respondent No.
226 227 of the Constitution challenging an order made by the State Transport Appellate Authority in respect of a stage carriage permit for the route, Digthan Indore via Ghata Billod.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3 was entitled to the grant of the permit as against the renewal of the permit in favour of the appellant.
The Appellate Authority did number give due weight to all the relevant companysiderations.
3 preferred an appeal under s. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act which was disposed of by the State Transport Appellate Authority.
It made a direction that a permit be issued to respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. Ibis appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing a petition filed under Arts.
3 The finding that the appellant had been guilty of number maintenance having number operated service on the kachha section of the route during the rainy season for two years was number well founded.
Petition No.
The Appellate Authority gave weight to the fact that whereas respondent No.
3 for a period of three years provided be put into service an air companyled vehicle within four months.
The Transport Authority, however, took the view that the offer had been made by way of a companypetitive bid.
Respondent No.
The appellant had applied for renewal of his stage carriage permit for that route.
The latter made an offer at the hearing that he would run an air cooled 1965 model vehicle.
The appellant moved the High Court by means of a writ peti tion.
740 of 1968.
