The Regional Transport Authority cannot take into consideration irrelevant and extraneous factors while granting permits for public carriers. The reasons given by the R.T.A. for refusing to grant a permit must be specific and sufficient to enable the applicant to know why his application has been turned down.

( 1 ) C. R. No. 3588 of 1953.

( 2 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: On or about 28-6-1953, the Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling, Respondent 1, published a notice in the Himalayan Times published at Kalimpong, inviting applications for the grant of 17 permanent routepermits for public carriers, on the Siliguri-Kalimpong Route. The notice contained invitations for applications regarding several other routes but we are not concerned with that in this application. As many as 766 applications were received in respect of the 17 permits. One of the applications was by the petitioner Onkarmal Mistri. It appears from the petition that he has been carrying on transport business for a long time and had been transporting goods between Siliguri and Kalimpong from the period when bullock carts were used in conjunction with, the rail-cum ropeway system which was then used. Thereafter he had been running public carriers in the Siliguri-Kalimpong Route and had four vehicles, which, it is stated, are almost new and in perfect working order. For the purpose of plying these vehicles, the petitioner was being granted temporary permits from time to time. The petitioner has been acting as a contractor to the Department of Civil Supplies, (now known as Food and Supplies Directorate) for transport of food stuff between Siliguri and Kalimpong. It is not disputed time the petitioner has several permits in routes other than the Siliguri-Kalimpong Route. The applications for the 17 permanent public carrier permits between Siliguri and Kalimpong, were considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling, on 9-9-1953. The relevant part of the minutes of proceedings of that date reads as follows:"in response to an advertisement issued in pursuance of resolution No. 15 (a) of the R. T. A. meeting dated 28-5-53 calling for applications for the issue of 17 permanent public carrier permits between Siliguri and Kalimpong, as many as 766 applications were received after due publication of the list of applications. After examining all the applications it was resolved to issue permanent route permits for public carriers on Siliguri-Kalimpong Route to the following applications". This is followed by 17 names of persons who were granted permits, but it does not contain the name of the petitioner. These 17 persons have now been made parties to this Rule. The proceedings further state as follows:"in the considered opinion of the R. T. A. , the above persons are very deserving; they have no other transport permit and are in a position to secure the necessary funds for the purpose of purchasing the vehicles. Nos. 1 to 8 above have been selected from amongst the temporary permit holders on the route being considered most deserving. In selecting them the R. T. A. has also given due consideration to refugees, schedule tribes, political sufferers and backward hillmen. . . . . . . . . . Also resolved that Shri Onkarmal Mistri who has been running temporary public carriers on the routs since a long time as a food carrying contractor, be kept in the waiting list so as to be granted a permanent public carrier route permit in the event of any vacancy". 2. This Rule was issued on 3-12-1953 calling upon respondent 1 to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the said respondent to forbear from giving effect to the order dated 9-9-1953 complained of in the petition, and/or why the said order should not be cancelled or recalled and/or why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued directing the said respondent to bring up to this Court all records and proceedings in the matter so that the order complained of may be quashed, and/or why a Writ in the nature of Prohibition should not be issued, or such further or other order or orders made, as to the Court may seem fit and proper. By an order dated 16-3-1954 respondents 2 to 18 were added as parties. On or about the 18/19-12-1953 the petitioner g