The grant of a permit for another route to the respondent No.
The S.T.A.T. missed this aspect, even though it made a companyparison of the merits of all the appli cants.
Out of the remaining applicants who were allotted equal marks, the R.T.A. found the appellant more suitable for the grant.
Shri T.M. Sampath, learned companynsel for the respondent No.
Ulti mately, the High Court dismissed both the revision petitions by its Order dated 1.12.1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.12.1983 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No.
Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned companynsel for the appellant showed that the S.T.A.T. has companymitted several errors in making the companyparison which include a misreading of the past operational record described as history sheet of the rival claimants.
1 made an attempt initially to support the S.T.A.T.s Order granting the permit to the respondent No.
By virtue of the interim Order of this Court, the situation existing during pendency of the revision in the High Court has been companytinued with the result that the appellant as well as respondent No.
The S.T.A.T. would have been justified in interfering with the R.T.A.s Order on this ground and either remanding the matter to the R.T.A. or companysidering the same itself on merits.
It is obvious that the grant of permit by the R.T.A. to the appellant refusing to companysider the claim of respondent No.
On 26.10.1979, the R.T.A. took up the case of all the applicants for companysideration.
1 and some other applicants on the only ground that each of them had been granted one other permit in the same sitting and, therefore, the R.T.A. did number deem it fit to companysider their claim for grant of the permit.
1 which was upheld by the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court, while deciding the revision petitions, has also number proceeded on the companyrect basis.
1 be allowed to operate on the route.
The appellant filed a petition for grant of special leave on 7.12.1983 which was allowed giving rise to this appeal.
The R.T.A. rejected the application of respondent No.
1407 of 1983.
Ramaswamy and S. Srinivasan for the Appellant.
1 and some other applicants on merits solely on the ground that they had been granted one other permit in the same sitting is clearly untenable.
T.M. Sampath for the Respondents.
1, Hafez Motor Transport firm .
The respondent No.
1 have been companytinuing to operate on the route throughout obviously on account of renewal being granted to them from time to time because of this Courts interim Order.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. Applications were invited by the Regional Transport Authority, Pudukkottai in short the R.T.A. for grant of one stage carriage permit on the route, Pudukkot tai Kottaipattinam, the total length of the route being 70 kms.
There were in all 15 applicants including the appel lant, S.V. Sivaswami Servai, and respondent No.
This led to two civil revi sion petitions in the High Court of Madras hereinafter referred to as the High Court , one by appellant and the other by another unsuccessful applicant.
The High Court, by an interim Order dated 22.9.1981, stayed operation of the T.A.T.s Order and directed that the appellant as well as respondent No.
2978 of 1981.
1 and some others, feeling aggrieved by the R.T.A.s Order in appellants favour, preferred the appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras in short the S.T.A.T. By the Order dated 5.9.1981, the S.T.A.T. set aside the R.T.A.s Order granting, the permit to the appellant and granted the permit in favour of respondent No.
1 and some others companyld only be a relevant circumstance while assessing the companypara tive merits of all the applicants, but by itself it companyld number be decisive or sufficient to refuse companysideration Of their claim.
Accordingly, the R.T.A. granted the permit to the appellant for a period of three years on 26.10.1979.
The result is that the permit granted in October 1979 for three years expired long back and yet number merely one of these claimants for the permit, but both of them have been operating on the route all these years.
