JUDGMENT

VERMA, J.:—Applications were invited by the Regional Transport Authority, Pudukkotta (in shortthe R.T.A.) for grant of one stage carriage permit on the route, Pudukkottai-Kottaipattinam, the total length of the route being 70 kms. There were in all 15 applicants including the appellant, S. V. Sivaswami Servai, and respondent No. 1, Hafez Motor Transport (firm). On 26-101979, the R.T.A. took up the case of all the applicants for consideration. The R.T.A. rejected the application of respondent No. 1 and some other applicants on the only ground that each of them had been grantd one other permit in the same sitting and, therefore, the R.T.A. did not deem it fit to consider their claim for grant of the permit. Out of the remaining applicants who were allotted equal marks, the R.T.A. found the appellant more suitable for the grant. Accordingly, the R. T. A. granted the permit to the appellant for a period of three years on 26-10-1979. The respondent No. 1 and some others, feeling aggrieved by the R.T.A.s order in appellants favour, preferred the appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (in shortthe S.T.A.T.). By the order dated 5-91981, the S.T.A.T. set aside the R.T.A.s order granting the permit to the appellant and granted the permit in favour of respondent No. 1. This led to two civil revision petitions in the High Court of Madras (hereinafter referred to as the High Court), one by appellant and the other by another unsuecessful applicant. The High Court, by an interim order dated 22-9-1981, stayed operation of the S.T.A.T.s order and directed that the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 be allowed to operate on the route. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed both the revision petitions by its order dated 1-12-1983. The appellant filed a petition for grant of special leave on 7-12-1983 which was allowed giving rise to this appeal. By virtue of the interim order of this Court, the situation existing during pendency of the revision in the High Court has been continued with the result that the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 have been continuing to operate on the route throughout obviously on account of renewal being granted to them from time to time because of this Courts interim order. The result is that the permit granted in October, 1975 for three years expired long back and yet not merely one of these claimants for the permit, but both of them have been operating on the route all these years.

2. It is obvious that the grant of permit by the R.T.A. to the appellant refusing to consider the claim of respondent No. 1 and some other applicants on merits solely on the ground that they had been granted one other permit in the same sitting is clearly untenable. The grant of a permit for another route to the respondent No. 1 and some others could only be a relevant circumstance while assessing the comparative merits of all the applicants, but by itself it could not be decisive or sufficient to refuse consideration of their claim. The S.T.A.T. would have been justified in interfering with the R.T.A.s order on this ground and either remanding the matter to the R.T.A. or considering the same itself on merits.The S.T.A.T. missed this aspect, even though it made a comparison of the merits of all the applicants. Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned Counsel for the appellant showed that the S.T.A.T. has committed several errors in making the comparison which include a misreading of the past operational record described as history-sheet of the rival claimants. The High Court, while deciding the revision petitions, has also not proceeded on the correct basis. Shri A.T.M. Sampath, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 made an attempt initially to support the S.T.A.T.s order granting the permit to the respondent No. 1 which was upheld by the High Court. However, after some arguments both counsel made a common request to remand the matter to the R.T.A. for a fresh decision on merits taking into account the comparative mer