The principle of simultaneous consideration does not have a statutory basis and its validity must be sustained with reference to constitutional requirements of equality before the law and the principle of natural justice and fair play.

1. - On the Karauli-Narainpur Tatwada bus route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route') Laxmichand respondent No. 3 had a non-temporary stage carriage permit, which was valid upto August 19, 1974. Laxmichand submitted an application for renewal of his permit on June 15, 1974 which was late by 54 days, in accordance with the limitation prescribed for filing of such application for renewal of state carriage permits, under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As the application of Laxmichand was late by more than 15 days, the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTA') rejected the said application for renewal of permit as time barred, by its order dated June 24, 1974. Thereafter, the RTA proceeded to notify one vacancy on the route, which was caused on account of the rejection of the application of renewal of the permit of Laxmi Chand, by its notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July 25, 1974 and invited applications within a period of 30 days of the publication of the aforesaid notification in the Rajasthan Gazette. The petitioner was one of the applicants for the grant of a fresh non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route in the aforesaid vacancy and his application was also published in the Rajasthan Gazette under Section 57 (3) of the Act inviting objections in respect thereof, by the notification of the RTA dated August 12, 1974. The petitioner's case is that no one filed any objections or representations within the meaning of Section 57 (4) of the Act in respect of his application for the grant of a permit on the route. By its notification dated August 29, 1974 the RTA notified that the applications for the grant of a fresh stage carriage permit on the route would be considered at the meeting of the Authority to be held on October 21/22, 1974. It appears that the afore said meeting was adjourned to October 29, 1974 and on that date, the matter relating to the grant of stage carriage permit on the route was considered by the RTA and a permit was granted to the petitioner, in the vacancy caused on account of the refusal to renew the permit of the respondent No. 3, Laxmichand. The Secretary, RTA, also issued a permit to the petitioner on the route on November 23, 1974 in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the RTA dated October 29, 1974.

2. Laxichand respondent No. 3 preferred a revision petition under Section 64A of the Act, against the aforesaid order of the RTA dated October 29, 1974 granting a permit to the petitioner, before the STate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), which heard the revision petition after notice to the petitioner. Laxmichand submitted before the Tribunal that after the rejection of the application for the renewal of his permit by the RTA on June 24, 1974, he submitted an application for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid renewal application and that application was also rejected by the RTA by its order dated August 28, 1974 and that thereafter he also submitted an application to the RTA for the grant of fresh permit on the route on September 27, 1974 which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on December 10, 1974 under Section 57 (3) of the Act, inviting objections in respect thereof within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication of the aforesaid application. Laxmichand, in the aforesaid circumstances, urged before the Tribunal that his application for the grant of a fresh permit should have been considered by the RTA along with the application of the petitioner. This contention found favour with the Tribunal, who by its order dated January 20, 1975 accepted the revision petition filed by Laxmi Chand before it and set aside the resolution of the RTA granting a permit to the petitioner on the route and remanded of the case back to the RTA for a fresh consideration of the application o