LARRY DSOUZA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the quashing of the order dated 16th April 1987 of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the KSTAT') made in Appeal No.776/85, on its file, by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

(2.) Antecedant material facts are : Thw Regional Transport Authority, Dakshina Kannada (for short 'the RTA'), invited applications under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), respecting grant of a stage carriage permit on a Mangalore City route between Kodikal and State Bank for performing 13 round trips a day. The petitioner and respondent-3 were the only contesting rival applicants for grant of that permit before the RTA., which awarded under Rule 104-A (iv) (a) and (b) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules'), the marks as follows: Sl. No.Name of the applicant Place of business & residence Sector Bus and Tech. experience Total 1. M. Sadananda Nayak (Respondent-3)_4155 2.Larry D'Souza (Petitioner)415 The RTA., which found that the contesting rival applicants stand on equal footing as regards the marks obtained by them, preferred the petitioner for grant of stage carriage permit under consideration for two reasons, to wit, (1) he had a ready 1985 model bus to be put on the route; and (2) he being an Ex- serviceman, could be trusted to operate the stage carriage service to the best satisfaction. The resolution dated 25th September 1985 of the RTA, by which the above grant of stage carriage permit was made in favour of the petitioner, was questioned by respondent-3 in an appeal preferred before the KSTAT. The KSTAT which heard the said appeal, found that the reasons mentioned in the resolution of the RTA for granting the stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner in preference to that of respondent-3, were unjustified. According to it, the fact that the petitioner was an Ex-serviceman was a consideration, which was irrelevant under Section 47 of the Act for the purpose of making selection of an applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit and hence that should not have been the reason for preferring the petitioner to that of respondent-3 in the matter of grant of permit. Coming to the other reason that the petitioner had a ready 1985 model bus to be put on the route, which weighed with the RTA in preferring the petitioner to that of respondent-3, it held that the RTA could not have proceeded on the premise that on the date of its resolution, the petitioner had a ready 1985 model bus to be put on the route. In this regard, it found that the representation made on behalf of the petitioner that he had got a ready 1985 model bus to be put on the route, was factually incorrect, by pointing out that on the date of the resolution, 1985 model bus, which was said to belong to the petitioner, being covered in the stage carriage permit held by one P. Bhaskar, was not free for being put for operation on the route. On the other hand, the KSTAT found that respondent-3's offer made to the RTA to put a new bus on the route to be a genuine one. The KSTAT, in effect, concluded that the petitioner and respondent-3 stood on the same footing in the matter of putting a new bus for operation on the route. However, previous satisfactory operation of a bus by respondent-3 on the very route for which stage carriage permit had to be granted, was regarded by the KSTAT as a factor which demonstrates that interest of travelling public was safe in his hands. At the same time, the fact that the petitioner, who was granted a temporary stage carriage permit for plying his bus from 1-4-1985 to 31-7-1985 respecting a route - Belladagudda to Mangalore and back, surrendered it on 16-5-1985 and got that very bus included in the pucca permit of one Sri P. Bhaskar, which was valid upto 31-12-1989, was regarded by the KSTAT as a factor which demonstrates that the interest of the travellving public cannot be well served by him. Therefore, according to the KSTAT, on comparative merits and demerits of past performance of respondent-3 and the petitioner, respondent-3 had to be preferred for grant of the stage carriage permit under consideration. Respondent-3 had possessed an educational qualification, such as, Diploma in Mechanical Engineering had also weighed with the KSTAT as a factor in preferring respondent-3 to that of the petitioner in the matter of grant of the said stage carriage permit. On consideration of the said matters, the KSTAT, by its order dated 16th April 1987, allowed the appeal of respondent-3, in which the resolution of the RTA granting the permit under consideration in favour of the petitioner had been questioned, and by reversing the resolution of the RTA, granted the permit in favour of respondent-3 with a direction that he should put a 1985 model bus on the route within three months. It is this order, the quashing of which is sought by the petitioner, as stated at the outset.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended rather strenuously that the KSTAT had committed a grave error of law in taking into consideration respondent-3's two years satisfactory operation of stage carriage service on the route, for which permit had to be granted, as a factor for preferring him for grant of such permit when full marks of four had been awarded to him under Rule 104-A (iv) (b) of the Rules under the head of sector qualification. The thrust of his contention was that a transport authority, which awards marks to an applicant, who seeks grant of a permit for a route on the basis that he had a full sector qualification on the route, cannot over again consider his past satisfactory performance on the route as an operator of a stage carriage service as a factor in his favour. It was also contended that the KSTAT was also not justified in taking the fact that the petitioner had surrendered his temporary permit and got the stage carriage service for which permit had been granted, covered hi the permanent permit of another as a factor against him. It was further contended that the KSTAT should not have i taken respondent-3's educational qualification in Mechanical Engineering as a factor in his favour for grant of permit to him when the qualification in Mechanical Engineering is not equivalent to the qualification in Automobile Engineering. However, the view of the KSTAT that the petitioner was an Ex-serviceman was an irrelevant matter taken by the RTA under Section 47(1) of the Act, in preferring him for grant of permit, was not disputed on behalf of the petitioner.