The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special leave granted in all the cases.
By the time the proviso came into force, 36 permits had been granted by the Karnataka State Transport Authority and 14 remained to be granted.
There were as many as 495 applications for the grant of these 14 permits.
By an order dated February 1, 1984, the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka State Transport Authority to dispose of these applications.
The State Transport Authority, by its proceedings dated April 30, 1984, granted 11 out of the 14 permits to the Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation, one permit to the Indian Tourism Development Corporation and two permits to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.1986 of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.3677 3680 of 1986 Etc.
The Tribunal by its order dated February 28, 1985 set aside the grant of the two permits in favour of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, set aside the grant of three out of eleven permits to the Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation and instead granted three permits to private operators and increased the number of permits granted to the Indian Tourism Development Corporation from one to three.
A number of appeals were preferred to the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation and some other private operators have filed these appeals by special leave of this Court under Art.
It was on that ground again, it was so stated by the Tribunal, that some of the appellants 1012 before the Tribunal had to be denied the grant of permits though otherwise they would have been entitled to the grant of permits having regard to their expertise, experience and resources.
The Tribunal took the view that having regard to the rule of preference enunciated by the proviso to s. 63 7 , the applications from the number preferred category had to be excluded as the number of applications from the applicants who were required to be given preference exceeded the number of permits to be granted.
It was on that ground that the grant of two permits to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was set aside, though the Appellate Tribunal had numberdoubt regarding the resources and ability of that companyporation to operate the tourist services.
The writ petitions were rejected by the High Court on the ground that the preference companytemplated by the proviso to s. 63 7 companytemplated exclusion of the number preferred class if sufficient number of applicants from the preferred classes were available.
A large number of applicants filed writ petitions in the High Court.
Shanti Bhushan, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, H.B. Datar, K.R. Nagaraja, 1011 S. Hegde, R.B. Datar, S.S. Jawali, B.P. Singh, N.D.B. Raju, R.P., Wadhwani, Aruneshwar Gupta, Swaraj Kaushal, KMM Khan, S.R. Setia, A.T.M. Sampath and C.S. Vaidyanathan for the appearing parties.
4053 to 4056 of 1985.
