The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interests of the travelling public should be the main consideration in granting a stage carriage permit, and subsequent developments and qualifications acquired after the submission of applications should be taken into consideration.

1. The appellant, the 1st respondent and 8 others had submitted applications for a stage-carriage permit for the route Chalakudy - Malayattur via Kalady in response to a notification dated 9-11-1955 of the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur (who will be referred to hereinafter as the R.T.A.). After due notification, receipt of representations, and a public hearing as per S.57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the R.T.A. granted the permit to the 1st respondent by its order Ext. R1 dated 5-5-1956. Four of the disappointed applicants appealed to the appellate authority, the Central Road Traffic Board, Trivandrum, and the latter by their order Ext. R2 dated 14-8-1956 vacated the order of the R.T.A. on the ground that the order did not give reasons for the rejection of the applications other than the one which was allowed by the R.T.A. During the pendency of the appeal before the Central Road Traffic Board there was a stay of operation of the order of the R.T.A., but in the meanwhile the 1st respondent was given a temporary permit to ply a bus on the route. It is admitted that that temporary permit was extended from time to time in favour of the 1st respondent till a pucca permit was granted to him on 24-8-1957 and that thus the 1st respondent has been running a bus on the concerned route from 5-5-1956 to this day without interruption and without any complaint from the travelling public or anybody else. After remand by the Central Road Traffic Board, the R.T.A. heard the matter again at a public hearing on 31-1-1957 and decided to grant the permit to the 1st respondent himself, Ext. R3 being the proceedings of even date. Three of the disappointed applicants took the matter in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (referred to hereinafter as the S.T.A.T.), who set aside the order of the R.T.A. by their proceedings Ext. R4 dated 23-7-1957 on the ground that the reasons given therein for the refusal of the permit to the appellants were vague and inadequate, and remitted the matter again to the R.T.A. The R.T.A. considered the applications afresh for the third time and passed their proceedings Ext. R5 dated 24-8-1957 granting the permit again to the 1st respondent himself. Three appeals were preferred against that order and thereupon the S.T.A.T., by Ext. P2 order dated 22-11-1958, set aside the order of the R.T.A. and granted the permit to the present appellant. The 1st respondent at once moved an Original Petition (O.P. No. 803 of 1958) in this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the S.T.A.T. and secured stay of the operation of that order in the meanwhile. The learned Single Judge, before whom the O.P. came up for disposal, observed:-.

"...he [the 1st respondent here] has been successfully operating the Chowara Malayattur route via Kalady. He had also without complaint been operating a temporary permit on the route under consideration And since Ext. R5 date he has been on the lines without causing difficulty to the travelling public. It would appear further that he had established garage at Chalakudy and Kalady though after Ext. R1 date. He has also his residence on the route. It is these various qualifications that recommended [the 1st respondent] to the R.T.A. The appellate authority thought that the principle of supporting a small operator as against big ones, if other conditions were equal, referred to and applied by the R.T.A. when it passed the final order R6 was unobjectionable. But it thought that the other conditions, viz., as to operational efficiency should not have been later acquired by the small operator as here. According to the Appellate Authority, the position as on 5-5-1956 when the first order was passed by the R.T.A. should alone apply. But why it belated that date and not more consistently the notification date or at least the date when the rival application for permit was respectively made is not clear. It is no doubt true that the applications refer to qualifications and