The appellant and the first respondent made applications for a permit for a stage carriage on the route Dindigul to Cumbam.
The first respondent filed an appeal before the Division Bench against this order.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the first respondent filed the writ petition before the High Court and a learned single Judge dismissed the petition.
2265 Home dated August 9, 1958.
It, therefore, set aside the order of the State Transport Authority and granted the permit to the appellant.
1298 Home dated April 28, 1956 and the Government Order No.
The appellant filed an appeal against the order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal came to the companyclusion that although the first respondent got more marks than the appellant, since another permit had been granted to the first respondent at the same sitting of the State Transport Authority, it will be denial of equal opportunity to the appellant and will number be in the interest of the public if the first respondent were granted another permit.
There were 21 other applicants for the permit.
as there were numberother applicants in the field.
The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the first respondent was better qualified to get the permit than the appellant as it got more marks than the appellant in accordance with G.O.Ms.
Mathew, J. In this appeal filed in pursuance to a certificate under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution, the question for companysideration is whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras was right in setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the first respondent here for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting a stage carriage permit to the appellant in the route in question.
