P.B.Mukhakji, J. - (1.) This is an appeal from the judgment and order of G. K. Mitter, J. dismissing the petitioner Gopal Chandra De's application under Article 229 of the Constitution for a writ to quash the order of the Appellate Sub-Committee of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal Burdwan, dated July 2, 1959.
(2.) The petitioner applied for the permit of a stage carriage for Midhabpur--Masagram route in Burdwan. The Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan, granted permit to the petitioner and refused the application of respondents 4 and 5 Kebal Chandra Paul and Sachitananda Paul. The oider of the Regional Transport Authority made on August 16, 1958 reads as follows : "Sl. No. 6 (respondents 4 and 5) has got permits for two Trucks and serial No. 7 (appellant) holds a bus route permit of this region. It is found that Sl. 7's (appellant's) grandfather used to possess this route, but owing to some difficulty of his own he preferred to surrender it The R.T.A. considered his claim as preferable and grant the permit for the route in favour of the applicant in serial No. 7, Sri Gopal Chandra Dey. Hence resolved that one permit be granted to Shri Gopal Chandra Dey of Sure-Kama."
(3.) Then there was an appeal and the Appellate Sub-Committee allowed the appeal filed by respondents Kebal Chandra Paul and Sachitananda Paul on July 2, 1959. In dealing with this claim, the Appellate Sub-Committee of the State Transport Authority made the following order: "In our opinion the order of the R.T.A. cannot be upheld. In dealing with the case of the Appellant, the R.T.A. had presumably in mind the provisions of Rule 57A of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, but that rule simply lays down that in granting a Stage Carriage or a Contract Carriage Permit preference should be given to a person who has no permits as compared with a person who holds one or more Permits. The primary object of that rule is to ensure even distribution of Stage Carriage and Contract Carriage Permits. Admittedly the Appellant Party has got no other Stage Carriage Permit, whereas the Respondent No. 2 has one such Permit within this region. The correct application of the rule in question would, therefore mean giving preference to the Appellant party over the Respondent. Apart from this, we do not consider that the fact that the applicant's grandfather used several years ago to hold a Permit on a certain route which he could not carry on for personal reasons, is any sufficient ground for showing preference to his grandson as compared with other applicants. In our opinion, in the present case, the appellants were the most appropriate Party to whom the Permit should have been granted among all the applicants. The order of the R.T.A. is set aside and it is, directed that the Permit to the Respondent No. 2 should be cancelled and the Permit should be granted to the Appellant Party.";