No retrospective operation.

S. Mohan, J.

1. Both of these revision petitions can be dealt with under a common order. The parties will be referred to by their names to avoid any confusion.

2. Applications were invited for the grant of a stage carriage permit ion the route from Erode to Appakudal Sakthi Nagar (Sugar Factory) which is of a distance of 22 miles and 4 furlongs. This has to be classified as short route for which the new entrants will be given preference. The Regional Transport Authority, Combater by his proceedings, dated 27th April, 1971 preferred Taxi Drivers Bus Service, because of their co-operative nature of enterprise. Aggrieved against this order, R. Govindarajulu and Mahalakshmi Transports, the respondent in both these revisions and the revision-petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3098 of 1978, respectively, preferred appeals. They came to be numbered as Appeal Nos. 601 and 635 of 1971. The Tribunal after elaborate consideration ultimately concluded that it was the respondent, who was best suited for the grant and therefore it set aside the grant in favour of M/s. Taxi Drivers Bus Service. I should at this stage note as to how M/s. Taxi Drivers Bus Service came to be altered with regard to its status. After the grant by the Regional Transport Authority in favour of M/s. Taxi Drivers Bus Service, it was transferred in favour of one of its partners Basheer Ahmad. Against the order of the Tribunal granting the permit in favour of Mahalakshmi Transports, Taxi Drivers' Bus Service, Erode v. Mahalakshmi Transports, Eroded C.R.P. No. 1737 of 1972, was preferred by M/s. Taxi Drivers' Bus Service. Likewise, R. Govindarajulu v. Taxi Drivers' Bus Service, Erode and Anr. C.R.P. No. 2667 of 1972, was filed by R. Govindarajulu. Both of them were heard by Ramaprasada Rao, J., as, he then was, and then the matters were remitted. After the matters were remitted, the transfer was made in favour of Basheer Ahmad. In I.A. No. 963 of 1978, Basheer Ahmad sought the permission of the Tribunal to continue the appeal and it was only during that hearing the permit came to be granted in favour of Govindarajulu, respondent in both these revisions. C.R.P. No. 2796 of 1978 is directed against the grant by Basheer Ahmad, while C.R.P. No. 3098 of 1978, is by Mahalakshmi Transports assailing the same grant. Inasmuch as Basheer Ahmad had joined Taxi Drivers' Bus Service C.M.P. No. 12836 of 1981 has been taken out to implead him as revision-petitioner in the place of M/s. Taxi Drivers' Bus Ser vice. I do not think there is any serious objection for the petitioner being impleaded and accordingly CM.P. No. 12836 of 1981' is allowed.

3. Now coming to the merits of the matter it is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the respondent had paid belatedly the tax and thereby paid penalty it would amount to punishment within the meaning of Rule 155-A(5)(ii) and therefore it will clearly amount to a disqualification. Secondly it is argued that the respondent had conviction of over-load of 39 persons and his conductor was convicted by a criminal Court which will be a relevant factor and the Tribunal had merely slurred over the same holding that the solitary instance of conviction will be of no consequence. Thirdly it is argued after remand on 28th September, 1973, the rules were changed and that marks for technical qualifications were revised and therefore, marks should have been awarded for technical qualification. The fourth submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is when the matter came up before the Tribunal the respondent obtained few more permits. Hence qualification as a new entrant, which is a preferential qualification for this short route, goes and it does not matter what kind of permit he had whether it was temporary or pucca permit because the relevant rule uses the word 'permit'. In fact in the decision reported in K. Balasnbrarnaria Chetty v. N.M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty the Supreme Court observed that experience gained on temporary pe