S P SUBRAMANIAN Vs. S CHOCKALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Regional Transport Authority preferred the revision petitioner for the grant on the ground that even though applicant No.5 Secured equal marks as applicant No.1 he has become a bus operator by getting permits on transfer recently and his performance has to be watched before any fresh permit can be granted. Aggrieved by this order, the matter was taken up by the respondent in appeal (AppNo. 231 of 1977) to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the workshop of the revision petitioner did not conform to Rule 155-A (2)(iv) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, and, therefore, it reduced two marks, as a result of which the marks of the revision petitioner came to 8. Under these circumstances, obviously having regard to the superiority of the marks and there being nothing to be said against respondent that it would not be in the public interest to make a grant in his favour, the grant in favour of the revision petitioner was set aside. and the respondent was favoured. Thus, the revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. V.P. Raman, urges the following points- (1) Rule 155-A (2)(iv) of the motor vehicles Rules in relation to the workshop merely lays down that the workshop must be of noncombustible material as nearly as practicable - That does not mean that even when workshop is resting on wooden rafters over which asbestos she is have been laid that would not conform to the requirements. There is no authoritative ruling on this aspect of the matter expecting an observation found in one of the judgments of this court in C.R.PNo.2646of 1979 M.Govindaswami V.D.Gnanaprakasam). As a matter of fact the earlier judgment of this Court in C.R.P.NO.446 OF 1975 (V.Raju V.M. Abdul Khader) takes a contrary view.

(3.) I am not able to accept any one of the above arguments as tenable. R.151-A (2) (iv) of the motor vehicles rules in relation to workshop, lays down as follows. :