The S.T.A.T. has jurisdiction to consider an allegation of fraud in an appeal against the refusal of a permit, and a grant of a permit based on fraud is vitiated.

1. - This writ petition is directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated November 3, 1980 (Annexure 2). Briefly the facts may be now narrated. On March 15, 1980 the Regional Transport Appellate Authority by resolution No. 29, item No. 26 dated March 6, 1980 rejected the application of Pritam Singh and Shiv Kumar for grant of non-temporary permit on the Sangaria Indipura route. It was granted to Satyanarayan. Both Pritam Singh and Shiv Kumar filed an appeal before the S.T.A.T. The S.T.A.T. accepted the appeal and by rejecting the application of Satyanarayan, ordered that the permit be granted to Pritam Singh.

2. Mr. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for Satyanarayan has challenged the order of this Tribunal on various grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that his client was a displaced operator and no fraud was committed by him in getting the permit. That the R.R.T.A. granted the permit to his client on second important consideration that his vehicle was of 1978 model. The vehicle of Pritam Singh was only of 1974 model. In view of this even if the first ground of displaced operator was held to be not sustainable, yet the second ground of a later model was itself sufficient. The S.T.A.T. therefore, should not have reversed the order of R.T.A. It was also submitted that an allegation of fraud could not have been considered in appeal as it may be separate matter of complaint before R.T.A. for cancellation of permit under Section 60, Clause (1), Sub-clause (D) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Maheshwari placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2333 and A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 800. In support of his contention that a later model should be preferred while granting the permit, he placed reliance upon decision of M.P. High Court in A.I.R. 1959 M.P. 320 and Rajasthan High Court in A.I.R. 1969 Raj. page 173, in respect of his contention that the ground of fraud cannot be considered in appeal by the Tribunal.

3. Mr. Chhangani appeared for the respondent Pritam Singh had vehementally opposed the writ petition. According to him under Article 226 of the Constitution, once the Tribunal on detailed consideration of the relevant factors had decided the appeal, this Court* cannot enter into the controversy as to what was proper or improper. Relience was placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 182. He then referred to Bhag Chand's decision reported in 1976 Weekly Law Notes (un-reported decision page 71) and argued that fraud was enough for vitiating the order of the R.T.A. and this court should not entertain the cases of petitioner of questionable conduct. Reliance was then placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1117 and 1174 in which it has been held that when there are number of considerations and it is found that one irrelevant factor was considered while deciding the question of granting permit, the order is vitiated because the irrelevant circumstances or factors may have influenced the mind of the authority. Mr. Chhangani, also invited my attention to judgment of this Court Shanti Devi S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1759 decided on July 27/77 in which it was held that if the model condition alongwith other factor are considered by the S.T.A.T. and inspite of a higher model if the prayer for permit is rejected on other grounds, the Tribunal's decision is not vitiated.

4. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions on the learned Counsel of the parties. The fact that the application of the petitioner Satyanarayan contained a note of 'Displaced Operator' is not in dispute. Again, the fact that one of the grounds for granting permit to the petitioner by the R.T.A. that he was 'Displaced Operator' is equally patent on record. The finding of the S.T.A.T. that Satyanarayan was not a displaced operator is also correct and cannot be seriously disputed.

5. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was a dislodged o