NEW KERALA BUS TRANSPORTS Vs. RTA CANNANORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the 9th applicant for the issue of a permit on the route, Cannanore - Azhikkal which is a distance of about eight miles. There were a number of applicants. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the second applicant. The appellant, the 9th applicant, and others, appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by a common order in the appeals set aside the grant of the permit to the second applicant and gave the permit to the 12th applicant. Two writ applications were taken, one by the second applicant and the other by the 9th applicant before this Court and Vaidialingam, J. dismissed these petitions by a common judgment in O. P. Nos. 1355 and 1689 of 1963.

(2.) This appeal is by the 9th applicant and two questions have been urged before us. The first point is that the appellant having made the application with reference to a specific bus, the decision of this Court in Vypeen Transport Corporation (P) Ltd. & others v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Trichur & Others reported in 1960 KLT 1058 applied and that the appellant should have been preferred. The second point is that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal erred in granting the permit to the 12th applicant as a new entrant though the 9th applicants qualifications were considered and expressed to be supreme.

(3.) One of the reasons stated by the learned Judge in the order under appeal for negativing the first contention is that this point does not seem to have been pressed before any of the authorities, the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. According to counsel for the appellant the decision reported in 1960 KLT 1058 fully supports him and the possession of a vehicle is a very relevant factor which should have been taken into account by the Tribunal and the omission to take a relevant factor into consideration vitiates the order and justified interference under Art.226 of the Constitution. Assuming this is so we still think that we should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in refusing to consider a question which was mooted for the first time before this Court in writ proceedings. We therefore negative the first contention urged before us.