Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR J. (On behalf of himself & K: SUBBA RAO J.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Madras dismissing the appellants application for a writ of certiorari. The appellant is an operator of state carriages in the District of Ramnad in Madras state. It appears that the Regional Transport Authority, Ramnad, granted one permit to the appellant and another to S. Gopalan Nair - who has also preferred an appeal by special leave before this Court (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1959); both the appellant and the said Gopalan Nair owned less than five buses each; and by the permit each one of them was authorised to run one bus from Ramanathapuram to Devakottai. This order was passed on 17-6-1957, in Proceeding No. R. 1220/Al/56.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 whose applications for permits had been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority preferred appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Each of them owned more than five buses. The Appellate Tribunal by its order passed on 22-3-1958, allowed the appeals, set aside the order granting permits to the appellant and the said Gopalan Nair and directed that permits should be issued in favour of the said respondents 3 and 4.

3. Both the Regional Transport Authority and the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to deal with the respective claims of the parties on the basis of G. O. No, 1298 issue by the Government of Madras on 28-4-1956, Under this G. O., several directions had been issued, one of which dealt with the allotment of marks to the applicants for permits under several heads indicated therein, The, Regional Transport Authority had allotted 61/2 marks each to the appellant and the said Gopalan Nair. These included four marks allotted to each of them under col. I which dealt with the building strength to viable units, According to the authority, respondents 3 and 4 who are fleet owners were not entitled to any marks under the said column. In the result the total marks allotted to the said respondents 3 and 4 were, respectively 6 and 4. That is why the appellant and the said Gopalan Nair who had obtained the highest marks were granted permits.

4. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the appellant and the said Gopalan Nair were not entitled to claim the benefit of the marks under col. 1 since the marks obtained by them under cols. 2 to 5 were less than the marks obtained by respondents 3 and 4 each under the same columns. The Appellate Tribunal held that, on a fair construction of the relevant G. O., it is only when the marks obtained by applicants under cols. 2 to 5 are equal that recourse can be had to col. 1 and marks can be allotted and counted thereunder.

5. Before the Appellate , Tribunal the decision of this Court in R. Rama Reddiar v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Civil Appeal No. 783 of 1957 - Judgment delivered on 6-2-1958, was cited. In that case the rival claimants in appeal owned 3 & 4 buses respectively. This Court held that the marks obtained by the said claimants in all the five columns should be totalled up and since the total number of marks obtained by the appellant on this calculation was less than that of the respondent the appeal was dismissed. Thus the competition with which this Court was directly concerned was between persons who owned less than 5 buses each. In dealing with this question, however, this Court construed the relevant Government Order and indicated what according to it was the true purport and effect of the said order. The Appellate Tribunal in the present case thought that according to the decision of this Court in the case of R. Rama Reddiar, Civil Appeal No. 783 of 1957, D/- 6-2-1958 (supra), the marks obtained by the appellant and the said Gopalan Nair under col. 1 could not be considered, because other things were not equal between them and respondents 3 and 4; that is to say, the marks obtained by them in Cols. 2 to 5 were not equal to the marks similarly obtained by the said res