The relevant point of time for evaluating qualifications for stage carriage permits is the date on which the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) first considered the applications. Subsequent qualifications should not be considered by the RTA after remand from the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT).

1. By Ext. P6 Judgment dated 26-4-1985, the 4th respondent the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) set aside Ext. P1 proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) dated 31-1-1985 granting a regular stage carriage permit to Vehicle KLL 3036 of the 1st respondent (petitioner in the O.P.) and remitted the applications of the appellant (1st respondent in the O.P.) and the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent "for consideration afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations" the reason for the remand stated being: (1) the appellant appeared to have been denied a proper hearing; and (2) his qualifications did not appear to have been properly compared with those of the 1st respondent. This order, Ext. P6, was challenged in O.P.4965/1985 at the instance of the 1st respondent. The learned judge by judgment dated 31-5-1985, disposed of the Writ Petition in the following terms: "xxx xxx xxx xxx

3. In view of the various decisions of this court particularly the one reported in Narayanan v. R.T.A., Trichur (1980 K.L.T.249) I am of the view that the said apprehension is baseless. The RTA in matters like this, cannot take into account the qualifications, the applicants acquired subsequent to the passing of the original order.

4. The RTA therefore is directed to consider and dispose of the applications for the pucca permit (pursuant to the directions contained in Ext. P6) taking into account only the qualifications, the appellant had acquired as on the date on which the 1st respondent (sic? 2nd respondent) passed the order which was set aside and remanded by the STAT as per Ext.P6 order for a denovo consideration."

The apprehension of the 1st respondent (petitioner) to which reference is seen to have been made in Para.2 of the judgment under appeal was that the RTA might take into account the qualifications acquired by the applicant after the date on which the RTA first considered the application i.e., the date on which Ext.Pl was passed.

2. Sri. P. Raveendran, the counsel for the appellant, contended before us that the direction in the judgment appealed against to the RTA to consider and dispose of the application taking into account only the qualifications the applicants had acquired as on the date on which the 2nd respondent passed Ext.Pl order ran counter to the spirit of the provisions of S.47 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V.Act) which emphasised the need for taking into account 'the interest of the public generally, and the advantage to the public of the service to be provided' while considering the application for stage carriage permits, and the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in P. S. N. Motor's case (1960 K.L.T. 1324) laying down that there was no principle that subsequent developments should not be taken into consideration; and that events including the legislations that came to be subsequent to the institution of the proceedings had to be taken into consideration in moulding the conclusion in the case.

3. Our attention has also been drawn by Sri. Raveendran to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Cannannore District Motor Transport Co-operative Society's case (1962 KLT 446) and to the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation's case (A.I.R. 1971 S.C.1804). In Para.2 of the judgments appealed against reference has been made to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Narayanan's case (1980 KLT 249).

4. Now, the point for consideration is, on remand from STAT, when the RTA takes up for fresh disposal, applications for grant of regular stage carriage permits, whether the qualifications as they existed on the date on which those applications came up for consideration before the RTA originally alone, or those acquired subsequently also, would be relevant. No doubt, in appeal, in P. S. N. Motor's case (1960 KLT 1324) the Division Bench approved the observations of the Single Bench that there was no principle that subsequent d