LODHA, J. - (1.) THE dispute in this case is between two rival claimants for grant of permit to ply stage carriage on Chittorgarh-Banswara route via Shambhupara, Nimba-hera. Chhotisadri, Dhamotra, Pratapgarh, Peoplerwoot. Khamera and Ghatol. This route was surveyed on the application of the petitioner Kandhari Babu. Originally scope of three Buses with one return service was fixed and the petitioner was granted a temporary permit to ply on this route. Later on, the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, revised the scope and fixed it as five Buses with two return services by its Resolution dated 18 April, 1973. By a Notification dated 10 May, 1973 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 14 June, 1973, the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur invited applications for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits on this route and the petitioner submitted his application on 4 July, 1973. THE non-petitioner No. 3 Rooplal, who is the contesting non-petitioner in the present writ petition, also applied for one permit on this route. In all, there were 29 applicants including the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 3, Rooplal (who, for the sake of brevity, will, hereinafter, be referred as to 'the non-petitioner' ). THE applications were considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur on 6, 7 and 8 February, 1973 and by its Resolution No. 43 (Ex. 8 at page 59 of the Paper Book), the Regional Transport Authority granted five permits one each, to Nathuram Gopikishan, Fakirchand, Jamnalal and the petitioner respectively.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, the non-petitioner filed appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur (to be referred to hereinafter as S. T. A. T.) impleading all the five persons to whom permits had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority as respondents. The S. T. A. T. , by its order dated 5 February, 1975 (marked Exhibit-9) allowed the non-petitioner's appeal and while setting aside the permit granted to the petitioner, allowed one permit to the non-petitioner. The present writ petition has been directed against the aforesaid order of the S. T. A. T. marked Exhibit-9 Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the S. T. A. T. has made wrongful presumptions and its findings against the petitioner are based on no evidence. It has been pressed upon me that the impugned order is arbitrary and capricious and has been passed in disregard of the well established principles in the matter of such grant and is, therefore, liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. On the other hand, the writ petition has been strongly opposed by Mr. Ram Raj Vyas on behalf of the non-petitioner. It has been argued, in the first instance, that the S. T. A. T. had jurisdiction to grant permit to one party in preference to another and the discretion exercised by the S. T. A. T. should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. The law as to the powers of the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in such matters is so well established that it hardly needs any criterion or detailed discussion. Mere wrong exercise of discretion does not furnish a sufficient ground for exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. But if the Tribunal has based its findings on no evidence and its inference are based on wrongful presumptions or unwarranted assumptions or there are errors apparent on the face of the record or if the Tribunal has recorded its findings in disregard of the mandatory provisions of law or in violation of the principles of natural justice, it cannot be denied, that this Court has jurisdiction to correct such palpable errors. Now, the principles governing grant of permits for plying stage carnages also seem to be well established. In Ajantha Transport (P) Ltd. , Coimbatore vs. M/s. V. K. Transports Pulampatti (1) their Lordships were pleased to observe "that an exercise of the permit issuing power, under sec. 47 of the Act (Motor Vehicles Act No. 4 of 1939) must rest on facts and circumstances relevant for decision on the question of public interest, which has to be always placed in the fore-front in considering applications for grant of permits". It was held that considerations of matters which are not relevant to or are foreign to the scope of powers conferred by sec. 47 will vitiate the grant of a permit under sec. 47. In the words of their Lordships 'it appears that sec. 47 (l) (a) gives the dominant purpose and sec. 47 (l) (b) to (f) are only its subcategories or illustrations. " Thus, the exercise of power to grant permit is to be judged on the touchstone of the interest of the public generally. In view of the aforesaid recent pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court on the points in issue, I do not think it necessary to refer to earlier case law either of the Supreme Court or of the High Courts and would contend myself by stating that in such matters what the Court has to do is to find out whether the Tribunal has taken into consideration at the time of grant of permits all the relevant factors which would serve best the interests of the public generally.
(3.) I propose to examine the merits of the impugned order by the S. T. A. T. from this standpoint. While dealing with the non-petitioner's claim for grant of permit the S. T. A T. has said that "he is a resident of Chittorgarh and holds driving licence since 1961 and holds no stage carriage permit "our consequently, according to the Tribunal, there appears no reason why a permit should not be granted to him. Coming to the petitioner's case, the Tribunal has said that "the permit granted to Shri Kandhari Babu deserves to be quashed because he had already a number of permits and admittedly he has sold them, which shows that either he could not manage the permits properly or he sold them for profit. " The Tribunal therefore, came to the conclusion that it would not be in public interest to grant any more permit to him merely because he was interested in getting the route opened. A word may be said, here, regarding the opinion framed by the Regional Transport Authority while allowing the application of the petitioner and disallowing that of the non-petitioner. In case of the non-petitioner, it has been pointed out by the Regional Transport Authority that he is a resident of Chittorgarh which falls on the route in question and that he is a young men holding driving licence since 1961 but has no permit. As regards the petitioner, it has been observed by the Regional Transport Authority that he, too, is a resident of Chittorgarh and holds driving license since 1937. But the consideration which tilted the scales in his favour were that the route was surveyed on his application and that he had a lot of experience in transport business and had also plied on the route in question on a temporary permit. It may be interesting to point out, here, that apprehending an onelaught by the non-petitioner against him at the hearing of the appeal, the petitioner filed an affidavit to fortify the view taken by the R. T. A. in his favour. The averments in the affidavit, unfortunately for the petitioner, furnished a handle to the non-petitioner for demotion of the petitioner's case for grant of permit. A copy of this affidavit has been placed on the record of this Court also by the petitioner himself and is marked Exhibit-10. In this affidavit, the petitioner stated that he came to India from Sukkar after division of the country and his joint family constituted by him and his brothers got stage carriage permits on Kota-Khanpur, Kota-Bhensorgarh and Kota Barod routes. He has further stated that in 1957 he left Kota and migrated to Chittorgarh and purchased a permit along with the Bus from one Lakhmal on Vijaypur Nimba-hera route on which he plied from 1957 to 1968 and since it ceased to be profitable, he sold the Bus to Safi Mohammad and got the permit transferred in his name and, latter on, Safi Mohammad also sold the Bus to one Ram Kishan Rathi and got the permit transferred in the vendee's name. In this connection, he has also deposed that be did not charge any premium from Safi Mohammad. Similarly, he deposes that he purchased a vehicle from one Abdul Rehman and plied the same on Chittorgarh-Mandal-garh route and got the permit transferred in his name. After plying on this route for about 11 tears, he transferred the bus as well as the permit on this route also to one Puroshottam Choudhary. There was yet a third instance in which he had to transfer the permit and the bus which he had purchased from one Harisingh of Begun on Chittorgarh Begun route. From the aforesaid averments the learned S. T. A. T. has drawn an inference that the petitioner must have transferred the young carriages and the permits held by him for either of the two reasons viz, that either he could not manage the business properly or he may have sold them for profit. It may be pointed out that there was no material before the S. T. A. T. on this point except the affidavit of the petitioner (Exhibit 10) to which a detailed reference has been made above. The petitioner has deposed in unmistakable terms that he did not charge any premium at the time of transferring the permits. It is undisputed that the permits were transferred with the permission of the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore the inference drawn by the S. T. A. T. that the petitioner may have sold the permits for profit is, arbitrary and based on no material but is against the clear averment in the affidavit. ;