Somnath Iyer, J. - (1.)In respect ol the route between Kibbanhalli and Kib-banahalli in the District of Tumkur an application was presented by respondent No. 4 to the Regional Transport Authority of Tumkur on May 10, 1968 for the grant of a permit to operate his stage carriage. That application was published in the Gazette under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which will be referred to as the Act On June 13, 1968, and May 27 1968, was the date within which representation could be made in opposition to the application. The first date of hearing was August 16, 1968, and, January 27, 1969 was the date on which the regional transport authority disposed of the application and in the meanwhile representations had been produced by the petitioner before us and the others.
(2.)On that day of hearing, the regional transport authority decided to grant the permit to respondent 4 and from that decision there were appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by the petitioner and two others. When these appeals were posted for arguments, a preliminary argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the permit granted by the regional transport authority was beyond its competence since there was disobedience to Rule 102 of the Motor Vehicles Rules made under the Act, which, insisted upon the production of a solvency certificate at least by the date fixed for the consideration of the application for a permit. It was pointed out to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that since Respondent 4 had produced no solvency certificate, the regional transport authority has no competence to grant him the permit. This argument was accepted by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which allowed the appeals and set aside the permit granted to Respondent 4.
(3.)But, in the further appeal preferred by Respondent 4 to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, he produced for the first time, the solvency certificate required by the rules and was able to get back the permit which had been granted to him by the Regional Transport Authority. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the non-production of the solvency certificate before the Regional Transport Authority did not entitle the petitioner to contend before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the permit granted to Respondent 4, despite such non-production could be set aside. In effect, the view that the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal took was that the defect if any emanating from the non-production of the solvency certificate was one for which the decision of the regional transport authority could not be set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as provided by Sub-section (2) of Section 134 of the Act.
;