JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:— Counsel for the appellant - a jolted transport operator - has assertively argued for an untenable position, heedless of the true nature of transport permit jurisprudence. The sole issue on which limited leave has been granted to him by this Court under Art. 136 lends itself to straight forward resolution, once we grasp the public character of the litigation and public purpose of the jurisdiction where permits regulating the plying of stage carriages are awarded or refused. The conscience of this branch of public law is justice to the public, although, in the process of adjudication private claims to carry on transport business through permits are comparatively evaluated. Public interest is the paramount consideration, while private rights, fundamental though, apparently constitute the quasi-lis for decision. The touchstone of better merit is solely the ability to serve the public, and the hierarchy of transport tribunals, bearing true faith and allegiance to Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1948 (for short, the Act) have the duty and, therefore, the power to consider all factors pertinent to the larger scheme of efficient public transport. To equate