P M MUNUSAMY GOUNDER PROP B K P M M BUS SERVICE KRISHNAGIRI Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION SALEM DIVISION II DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner made an application for renewal of permit for the route Krishnagiri to Thirupathur viz. , Kaveripattinam, thalihalli, Velampatti, Nagarasampatti, Pochampalli, Mathur, Kannandahalli and kakkangarai in respect of his route bus MDD. 454 for a further period of 5 years with effect from 24. 6. 1974. THE Anna Transport Corporation Ltd. , Salem also made an application for grant of pucca stage carriage permit to ply on the said route. Both the applications were considered by the Regional Transport authority, Dharmapuri, and in the order dated 21. 6. 1974, he rejected the renewal application filed by the first petitioner and granted the permit in favour of the Anna Roadways Transport Corporation Ltd. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed further appeal in Appeal No. 442 of 1974 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. THE appellate Tribunal also concurred with the findings of the Regional Transport Authority, Dharmapuri and dismissed the appeal. Hence the petitioners have filed the present revision.

(2.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the first petitioner has been making applications for renewal, pending the proceedings. One of such applications was made on 13. 1. 1989 requesting renewal for five years from 24. 6. 1989. According to him, the said application is yet to be disposed of. THEreafter also, the first petitioner made applications and the last of such applications for renewal are for the period from 24. 6. 1997.

(3.) IN view of the above decisions, the appellate tribunal is correct in taking into consideration the earlier punishments for the purpose of screening under Rule l55-A of the Rules. Once the petitioner cannot successfully get over the screening, he goes out of the consideration. He cannot raise the other objec- tion to issue the permit to the respondent-Corporation. To come to such conclusion, 1 seek assistance from the order of Mohan, J. , as he then was, in C. R. P. No. 131 of 1982, dated 16. 2. 1983 in which the learned judge has held as follows: 'IN seeking to revise this order, what is urged before me is that as far as the third respondent-Corporation is concerned, the records were not available before the Tribunal and therefore it should have applied the same test with regard to the Corporation as well. I am unable to agree. If the petitioner cannot successfully get over the screening, he goes out of the reckoning. IN other words, as far as the petitioner is concerned, he is hors de combat. Therefore, it is not open to me to say that the Corporation suffers from disqualification' .