- (1.) A single Judge of the madras High Court set aside the order of the State transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, allowing the appellant company's appeal granting them a permit to ply a bus on route No. 6 in Erode Town. An appeal preferred against his decision by the appellant company under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent was dismissed in limine. Against that decision the appellant has come up before this Court by special leave.
(2.) The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore invited applications for the grant of six permits for stage carriage buses for running erode Town service. On route No. 5 two stage carriage buses were sought to be introduced. The appellant, as well as respondents 1 and 2 and some others, had applied for the grant of all the six permits, including two on route No. 5. the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on march 16, 1961 considered the applications, granted four permits out of six to four existing operators and on route No. 5, which was a new route, it granted a permit to each of the two respondents. Aggrieved by this order the appellant preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which held that the appellant should be preferred TO the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal thus did not interfere with the order of the Regional Transport Authority in so far as the permit granted to the respondent no. 2 was concerned but set aside its order granting a permit to the respondent No. 1. Against this order the respondent No. 1 preferred a writ petition before the High Court. That petition was heard by a single Judge of the High Court and, as already stated, the learned Judge set aside the order of the tribunal in so far as the appellant was concerned. The ground on which the learned Judge set aside the order of the Tribunal was that the Tribunal did not state why the appellant should be preferred TO the respondent No. 1 in the matter of being given a permit. The learned Judges who heard the Letters patent Appeal preferred by the appellant observed, while dismissing the appeal: "The first respondent had this advantage, viz that he was given the permit by the regional Transport Authority. Before that permit could be set aside it was the duty of the appellate Tribunal to have considered the superior merit of the appellant. In considering such superior merit, it was bound to consider the pros and cons of the experience alleged to be possessed by the first respondent as against the claim of the appellant who puts his case only as a new entrant. The Tribunal appears to have taken as a rule of law that new entrants should invariably be preferred as that would give them an enthusiasm and also surcharge the atmosphere with a healthy competition. But it forgot that in all these matters, the paramount question, to be considered was the interest of the public, and, in considering the question, it had a duty to evaluate the rival claims of the two operators. "
(3.) Thus both the learned single Judge and the appeal court interfered with the order of the Tribunal on the ground that it had failed to determine a material issue and had thus not performed its duty.;