The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parity in qualifications before preference can be given to an applicant to enable him to build up a viable unit, as well as the relevance of the G.O. issued by the Madras Government and the consideration of monopoly in permit decisions.

P. Govindan Nair, J.

1. The writ applicant was the first applicant before the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur for a permanent permit for a stage carriage on the route Varavoor - Chiyyaram, a distance of 23 miles. The intermediary stages of the route are Kundanoor, Wadakkancherry, Trichur and Koorkancherry. The 2nd respondent was the second applicant. The Regional Transport Authority after consideration of the claims of the various applicants - there were others also - granted the permit to the writ petitioner. This is the relevant part of the order of the Regional Transport Authority.

"He - (applicant No. (2) - has got residence and workshop on the route. Applicant No. (1) has got residence and workshop on the route. He has got sector qualification over 12 miles the route. The sector qualification of applicant No. (2) is superior to that of applicant No.(1). But applicant No. (1) is a bus operator who deserves to be encouraged to become a viable unit. Moreover, at present between Kundannur and Varavoor covering a distance of 4 miles in the sector, applicant No. (2) is having a monopoly. The grant of another permit will further add to this monopoly. It was therefore decided to grant the permit to M/s Bharath Motors and to reject the applications of all the other applicants."

2. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal negatived these two grants. Regarding the first the Tribunal said that an applicant should be encouraged to build up a viable unit only if he has otherwise qualifications equal to that of the other applicants. If this rule is not applied it is said, the interests of the public will suffer and regarding monopoly the State Transport Appellate Tribunal expressed the view:

"As regards the question of monopoly, this vice is attributed to the appellant by reason of his being the sole operator on a portion of the route extending to 4 miles between Kundannur and Varavoor. As I mentioned already, the entire route is 23 miles long, a sketch thereof is seen at page 115 of the file. It may be conveniently split up into four sections. The first is Varavoor Kundannur (4 miles), the second is Kundannur Wadakkancherry (a distance of 3 miles); the third is Wadakkancherry Trichur (about 12 miles in length); and the last is Trichur Chiyyaram (extending to 4 miles). On the last mentioned section, namely Chiyyaram Trichur via Koorkancherry neither the appellant nor the second respondent operates any bus. So that the question of monopoly or concentration thereof does not arise between Trichur and Wadakkancherry, a large number of services operate including the State Transport undertaking. It is not shown that the appellant has got any undue concentration on this route. The second respondent too does not have predominance thereon even though all the three permits held by him on the date of the present grant ply along it. The second section between Wadakkancherry and Kundannur is part of the Kunnamkulam Wadakkancherry road operated by several transport operators including the appellant. It is not shown that the appellant occupies a predominant position on this sector. It is on the remaining sector, namely, Kundannur Varavoor that monopolistic position is attributed to the appellant. No doubt, he is the only transport operator plying on this section of the route. But it has to be noted that the two services that he operates on this sector do not run on this section exclusively, but only covers this portion as part of two route permits extending beyond both Kundannur and Varavoor. This circumstance coupled with the fact that the length of the sector comes only to four miles make it difficulty to bold that the appellants otherwise superior claims to the permit for this 24 mile route could properly be overlooked on the ground of monopoly "

3. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has mainly urged three grounds before me. The first of these is that in insisting that there should be parity in qualifications before preference can be given