JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. :— A single fundamental flaw in the order of the Appellate Tribunal (under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939), constrains us to allow this appeal challenging the High Courts refusal to interfere with the grant of the permit in favour of Respondent No. 2.

2. Many applicants for one Permit for a "short route" pressed their claims before the Regional Transport Authority which evaluated the relevant merits and awarded the permit to Applicant No. 6, who is the appellant before us. On appeal, Applicant No. 3, who is respondent No. 2 before us, succeeded. Whereupon, a writ petition was filed without success and the disappointed appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

3. The system of marks, under the Rules framed under the Act by the Tamil Nadu Government, prescribes the various qualifications for applicants for permits for passenger transport under the Motor Vehicles Act. Rule 155-A crystallises these considerations and describes them as guiding principles for grant of stage carriage permits. The rule itself emphasizes what is obvious, that the paramount consideration of the interest of the public, as enshrined in Section 47 (1), must be given full weight while awarding permits. That means to say that the various factors set out in rule 155-A are subject to Section 47 (1). This is clarified by sub-rule (4) of Rule 155-A, which runs thus:

"After marks have been awarded under sub-rule (3), the applicants shall be ranked according to the total marks obtained by them and the application shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 47".

4. There is no doubt that bus transport is calculated to benefit the public and it is in the fitness of things that the interest of the travelling public is highlighted while evaluating the relevant worth of the various claimants.

5. There are two circumstances which require to be stressed because they have been overlooked by the appellate tribunal in its disposal of the comparative merits of the rival claimants. Sub-rule (5) (i) of Rule 155-A states that preference shall, other things being equal, be given in the disposal of applications in respect of short routes.... to persons who have not held any permit for a stage carriage. Among the considerations which must weigh with the authorities entrusted with the power to grant permits, is business or technical experience in the field or motor vehicles operation. Rule 155-A in Item (D), sub-rule (3) specifically states "two marks shall be awarded to the applicants who have business or technical experience in the road transport service as defined in clause (a) of Section 68-A of any class of transport vehicles for a period of ten years or more."

6. Having regard to the marking system as adumbrated in Rule 155-A, a broad sheet was apparently prepared and the appellant before us (Appellant No. 6) secured 4 marks as against the second respondent (Applicant No. 3) who got 3.10 marks. Ordinarily, therefore, the applicant who got higher marks should have won the battle. Moreover, in a short route, as in this case, the rule comptemplates preference being given to a new entrant, of course, other things being equal. In this case, therefore, the appellant before us, being admittedly a new entrant, was entitled to preference, the route being a short one, other things being equal. The short question that, therefore, fell before the Appellate Authority was as to whether other things were equal. This aspect attracted the attention of the Appellate Authority, but its consideration unfortunately was unsatisfactory. The Appellate Tribunal observed that though the Applicant No. 6 had secured higher marks than Applicant No. 3 : "I am inclined, having regard to the public interest in the matter of passenger transport service, to agree with the appellants contention that the respondents experience as lorry operator cannot be equated with the appellants experience in bus operation." This view, according to him, is t