Pandey, J. - (1.)This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against two orders, one passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Indore (respondent 3) on 30/31st January, 1958, whereby a stage carriage permit for Indore-Julwania-Barwani route was granted to phoolchand (respondent 1) in preference to other claimants including Nazirbhai (petitioner), and the other passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority (respondent 2) on 31st May, 1961, by which the appeal filed by two of the rival claimants and an objector was dismissed.
(2.)For a permit for the route there were as many as seven applicants many of whom also made representations against the rival claimants. In regard to the claim made by Nazirbhai the Regional Transport Authority observed:
"The applicant Nazirbhai Haji Chisabhai has two routes and a 1953 model spare passenger bus. The applicant should give to the public better transport facilities by paying special attention to the passenger buses running on Kannod-Nemawar and Indore-Sendhwa routes. His claim for this route appears to be inferior."
About Phoolchand, that Authority said:
"The applicant phoolchand Jaiswal, Indore, is the remaining applicant for the route. At present the applicant is working in the capacity of manager of the passenger buses of Rajaram Biharilal, Jugalkishore Siddhanah and Pramilabai Mule on Indore-Chambal and Indore-Dhar routes. He himself is a driver. From time to time the applicant has run spare passenger buses on temporary permits. Thus the applicant has full knowledge of this business. The applicant had been continuously applying for permits for different routes but his applications were not accepted. Regarding applicant Phoolchand Munnalal Jaiswal other applicants raised the objection that he carried on the business of purchase and sale of passenger vehicles. About this a chart was also filed. The applicant had a 1953 model passenger bus, MBY 1590. Thereafter he had a 1954 model bus, MBK 1237. These passenger vehicles were sold by the applicant. For these passenger vehicles, the applicant had made applications for different routes but they were not accepted by the Regional Transport Authority, Every time the applicant offered before the Regional Transport Authority a passenger vehicle of good model but having not obtained permission, he had to sell it to other businessmen. Other applicants also have to adopt the same course. Therefore, the objection that the applicant carries on the business of purchase and sale of passenger vehicles does not appear to be correct, Today the applicant has a passenger vehicle MBK 4311 of 1957 model. That passenger vehicle is in a better condition than the spare passenger vehicles with other applicants and the seats are more comfortable for the passengers. The applicant has been continuously making applications for various routes. In our judgment, the applicant Phoolchand Jaiswal appears to be the best for this route."
Accepting the reasons given by the Regional Transport Authority for selecting Phoolchand and giving some other reasons for preferring him, the State Transport Appellate Authority concluded as follows "After taking an overall picture of the claims of the rival claimants in this case I do not think that the Regional Transport Authority was wrong in any way in granting permit to respondent No. 2. Having regard To all the circumstances of the case, I feel that the selection of respondent No. 2 in preference to other appellants was quite justified and was not in any way improper."
(3.)The petitioner has challenged the two orders of the Transport Authorities on these grounds. They took into account extraneous and irrelevant considerations. They also omitted to have regard to the matters which they were bound to consider under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Further, the State Transport Appellate Authority misconstrued one of the reasons given by the Regional Transport Authority.