Mootham, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice James dated the 5th December, 1958, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The relevant facts are these: On the 8th June, 1957, the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur Region, invited applications for the grant of a single permit on the Jhansi-Garotha route. In response to this invitation a number of applications were received including a joint application from the appellants who are two in number. The applications were thereafter published in the Government gazette and certain objections were received. The matter came before the Regional Transport Authority on the 16th/17th January, 1958, and by a resolution passed at that meeting the Regional Transport Authority sanctioned the grant of a stage carriage permit for a term of three years to the appellants who were, in their opinion, "the best claimants", and thereafter a permit was issued accordingly.
(3.) Against this order of the Regional Transport Authority three appeals were filed before the State Transport Authority Tribunal, the appellants being respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5, namely Sri Bhagwan Das Gupta, Sri Ram Gopal Ratha and Sri Radha Mohan. On the 6th February, 1958, the State Transport Authority Tribunal passed an interim order in these appeals directing the Regional Transport Authority , to give its reasons for granting it permit to the appellants, and at the same time it empowered that Authority to hear the parties again in order to be able to give its reasons in detail. The Regional Transport Authority accordingly met on the 10th April, 1958, and after hearing the parties passed the following resolution: "R. T. A. has heard Bhagwan Das Gupta through counsel, Ram Gopal in person and Messrs. Hukum Chand Sri Ram Tewari through their counsel. The reasons for refusing permits to the first two have as required by. Section 47(7) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, already been given in this Authority's Resolution No. 15(26) dated January 16/17, 1958, viz. want of any further vacancy on the route. As for the comparative merits of the three claimants after considering all facts the R. T. A. remain of the view that regard being had to the interest of the public generally Messrs. Hukum Chand Sri Ram Tewari have the best claim." The State Transport Authority Tribunal then fixed the 25th October, 1958, for the further hearing of the appeals. On the day preceding the date so fixed, namely the 24th October, 1958, the third respondent Sri Bhagwan Das Gupta filed an affidavit before the Tribunal wherein he alleged that one of the members of the Regional Transport Authority, Sri Balmukand Shashtri, was related to the second appellant before this Court, Sri Ram Tewari. This was the first time that such an allegation had been made. On the following day, the 25th October, the State Transport Authority Tribunal by an order of that date dismissed the appeals of Sri Bhagwan Das Gupta and Sri Radha Mohan, but allowed that of the fourth respondent, Sri Ram Gopal Ratha. It accordingly directed that the permit which had been granted to the appellants be cancelled and that in lieu thereof a permit be granted to Sri Ram Gopal Ratha. The reason for the decision taken by the Tribunal is stated by it in these words: "Messrs Hukum Chand and Sri Ram Tewari in our opinion should not be allowed to continue to hold this permit. Sri Ram Tewari is closely related to Sri Balmukund Shashtri who happened to be a member of the R. T. A. In fact in another case, it was pointed to us that Sri Shashtri had performed "the marriage ceremony of his niece with Sri Ram Tewari from his place and was, therefore, financially interested in the grant of the permit. An affidavit to the same effect has been filed before us. Sri Ram Tewari has not filed any affidavit nor he is present. Hukum Chand says that the relationship is not so near. Whatever may be the exact relationship it cannot be denied that Sri Balmukund Shashtri should not have exercised his opinion in the grant of this permit. That the discretion of R. T. A. was wrong, is also evident from the fact that it is unable to express its reasons. Grant of such permits shakes public confidence and therefore we are of the opinion that one of the three appeals should be allowed.";