Judgement

HEGDE, J. :- The Regional Transport Authority of Guntur called for application for two routes between Pattabhipuram and Loyola Public School, a distance of about 7 miles. Thirty-eight persons applied for the routes in question. After eliminating some of the applicants as being disqualified the R. T. A. considered the case of others. He granted one route to the 4th respondent and another to the 1st respondent in this appeal. Aggrieved by that order the appellant and another appealed to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority sustained the grant made in favour of the 4th respondent but set aside grant in favour of the first respondent and granted that route to the appellant. As against that order the first respondent went up in revision to the Government. The Government reversed the order of the Appellate Authority and restored that of the R.T.A. The appellant challenged that order by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The writ petition came up for hearing before a single judge. The learned single Judge allowed the petition and quashed the order of the Government. As against the order of the learned single Judge an appeal was taken to the Letters Patent Bench. The Appellate Bench reversed the order of the learned single Judge and restored that of the Government. Thereafter this appeal has been brought.

2. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that both the appellant as well as the first respondent have equal qualifications as regards residence and business experience. But it preferred the appellant on the ground that he is a "New entrant to the field of stage carriage business. It was not contested before the Appellate Authority that the appellant was not "a new entrant" within the meaning of that word in rule 212 (1) (ii) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules. The Government also proceeded on the basis that the appellant is a new entrant within the meaning of that rule. But yet it preferred the first respondent on the ground that he had sector qualifications etc.

3. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the qualifications of the appellant as well as the first respondent as regards residence as well as business experience are similar and therefore the Appellant Authority had rightly granted to them 5 marks each but he quashed the order of the Government on the ground that the Government failed to give the appellant the benefit of the rule mentioned earlier. In his opinion, the technical knowledge, business experience as well sector qualification referred to by the Government had been taken into consideration by the R.T.A. as well as the Appellate Authority in awarding marks to the appellant as well as the respondent. That being so, the same qualifications could not be taken into consideration over again.

4. Before the Appellate Bench the only point canvassed was as to the meaning of the words "a new entrant" in rule 212 (1) (ii) (a) referred to earlier. The other points considered by the Government were evidently not put in issue. The Appellant Bench came to the conclusion that the words "a new entrant" in the rule in question mean new entrant to the motor transport field. On that basis it came to the conclusion that the appellant is not a "new entrant".

5. In our opinion, the Appellant Bench erred in coming to the conclusion that the expression "a new entrant" in the rule in question means new entrant to the motor transport field. The marginal note to rule 2 (1) (ii) says : "Grant, variation, suspension or cancellation of stage carriage permit-guiding principles". This note indicates that the rule-making authority was only considering the grant of stage carriage permits. Sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of Rule 212 (1) does not refer to motor transport business. When it comes to business or technical experience the rule specifically speaks of business or technical experience in motor transport. But when it speaks o