JUDGMENT

1. The appellant along with the contesting respondent had applied for grant of stage carriage permit on the route from Truchirapalli to Jayankon-dam on or before October 10, 1975. Objections have been called for on October 22, 1975 and the last date to file the objection was November 10, 1975. On consideration of the respective claims the R.T.A., Truchirappalli awarded to the appellant 10 marks and 8 marks to the respondent. On that premise RTA granted permit to the appellant. The respondent carried the matter in appeal to the S.T.A.T. Which by its Order dated November 14, 1977 set aside the order of R.T.A. and grated the permit to the respondent. In C.R.P. No. 88/78 by Order dated March 5,1980 the learned Single Judge upheld the Order of S.T.A.T. thus, this appeal by Special leave.

2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the RTA should consider the respective claims as on the date of the consideration or as on the date of the application. The RTA held that the date of application was the relevant date. But the Appellate Authority and the High Court found that the date of the consideration was the relevant date. Admittedly, the respondent-partnership firm was reconstituted on April 1,1976 taking one Easwaran as a managing partner and it was registered on May 21, 1976 under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. Admittedly, the managing partner had the technical qualification as on the date of consideration. The managing partner being the technically qualified man, the respondents are entitled to the award of two more marks on the ground of qualifications. The Appellate Tribunal taking that fact into consideration awarded 10 marks and on comparative evaluation, since the respondent by then had three permits, granted the permit to the respondent. The question whether the date of consideration is the relevant date is no longer res Integra. This Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mangrulpir Jt. Motor Service (P) Ltd. and Ors., (1971] Suppl. SCR 561 at 571 held that :

"The High Court was in error on the second question in holding that the Regional Transport Authority would have to consider the respective qualifications of the applicants as on the date of their applications and not as on the date of the actual consideration by the Regional Transport Authority of the applications for the grant of permit."

3. This Court considered diverse circumstances in support of that conclusion this Court said that as on the date of the application if insolvency petition is pending against one of the applicants, but on the date of consideration if he is declared to be an insolvent, he becomes disentitled to the grant of permit by operation of law. As on the date of the application if there is no conviction, but as on the date of consideration, if an applicant is convicted, he also becomes ineligible for consideration.

4. Another circumstance arose Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari and Ors, case was that when one of the applicants before the consideration died and his L.Rs. were brought on record. When It was questioned, this Court held that the L.Rs. are entitled to be considered as inheriting the estate of the deceased applicant for grant of permit. In A.S. Jalaluddin v. Balasubramaniar Bus Service (P) Ltd. and Anr., C.A. NO. 161 of (1965) decided on 31.10.1967) the question arose that whether the applicant who secured the residential qualification by establishing a branch office at one of the terminus of the route would be considered eligible as on the date of the consideration. This Court held that he is entitled to. In view of these considerations, it must be held that the date of consideration is the relevant date for the purpose of considering the eligibility to grant the required marks under Section 46 of Act IV of 1939. This law being in operation from 1970, we do not think that it requires any reconsideration by this Court by a larger bench. Accordingly, we hold that the date of considera