The refusal to entertain an application for permit is an act of the Regional Transport Authority, and the word 'refusal' should take in cases which result in non-consideration of the application and consequent negation of permit. Provisions relating to appeal should be construed liberally upholding the right of appeal than defeating it.

1. Third respondent, who is a past graduate degree holder with M.A. in English Literature and a degree in Physical Education, with conductor's licence and badge to boot, applied for the grant of a regular stage carriage permit on the route Tholannur-Malampuzha in Palghat District. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palghat, namely, the 2nd respondent had invited applications for the grant of a regular permit on the route by notification dated 11-8-1986 published in the Kerala Gazette dated September 2,1986. The applications were required to be submitted within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the notification in the gazette. The 3rd respondent submitted his application on October 1, 1986. but it was returned by the second respondent as defective on October 15, 1986 for not enclosing Income Tex Clearance Certificate along with the application.

2. Earlier and pursuant to notification dated July 3, 1986, inviting applications for grant of temporary permit on the route, the third respondent bad applied for a permit, which was accompanied by all the necessary details and documents. This was a valid application and was therefore considered by the Regional Transport Authority, the first respondent, at its meeting held on July 30, 1986. The temporary permit was granted to the third respondent in preference to others on account of his being an unemployed post-graduate requiring self employment.

3. This order was taken up in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the 4th respondent herein as per M.V.A.A. No. 463 of 1986. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by its order dated 6th November, 1986 and granted the permit to the petitioner herein for certain reasons, which it is not necessary to go into at this stage.

4. It was meanwhile that the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for grant of pucca permit on the route. The 3rd respondent submitted his application on 1-10-1986 within the time prescribed by the notification. The application was not accompanied by the clearance certificate, aforesaid, the petitioner's explanation for its non-production being that he had already produced it along with his application for temporary permit for the same route and that it was part of the file. The third respondent subsequently produced clearance certificate afresh or 14-10-1986. The application was nevertheless "returned" as defective on 15-10-1986 by the proceedings Ext. P1 dated 14-10-1986. It is to be noted that by this time, the period of thirty days fixed for presentation of applications had expired. It was a virtual rejection of his application for permit.

5. The third respondent filed appeal against this order before the 4th respondent-State Transpire Appellate Tribunal as M.V.A.A. No. 575 of 1986. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by its order dated 17th November, 1986, a copy of which is Ext P3 The Tribunal noted that the appellant before it (namely the 3rd respondent herein) had subsequently produced the clearance certificate, and that the Regional Transport Authority ought to have processed the application under S.57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (he Act for brevity), and considered and disposed it of on merits. The appeal was therefore allowed with a direction to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to receive the 3rd respondent's application, if re-presented within a week, and then to notify the same under S.57(3).

6. At the hearing of the appeal, a contention was raised by the petitioner herein that no appeal lies against the proceeding in question, under S.64 of the Act, there being only a return of the application for permit. This contention was however overruled by the Tribunal, stating that the re urn of the application without processing, was a refusal to grant the permit sought by the appellant, and hence the appeal was maintainable under S.64(1)(a).

7. The only contention raised before me by counsel for the petitioner is that the tribunal ought to have dismissed th