I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment just now delivered by my learned brother and with all due respect, I regret I am unable to agree with my learned brother in the conclusions arrived at by him.

This appeal is against the Order of Rajagopalan, J., in W.P. No. 467 of 1957. The 3rd respondent in the said Writ Petition is the appellant. Though the facts have been set out in great detail by my learned brother, still I would like to set them out in my own way.

The appellant, Messrs. Swamy Motor Transport (Private) Ltd., Tanjore, is one of the bus operators in the District of Tanjore. He was operating 11 buses on the route between Tanjore and Kumbakonam, via, Papanasam, a distance of 25 miles. Another operator, Sri Rama Vilas Service (Private) Ltd., was operating as many as six buses on the same route, Tanjore to Kumbakonam. The first respondent in this appeal, Messrs. Raman & Raman (Private) Ltd., is another operator who was operating 10 buses on the route between Kumbakonam to Tiruvarur via Kodavasal and Rama Vilas Service was also plying 4 buses on this latter route. While the distance of the route between Tanjore and Kumbakonam is 25 miles, the distance of the route between Kumbakonam and Tiruvarur via Kodavasal is 24 miles. Some years ago, the Respondent is said to have plied some buses between Kodavasal and Koradachery a distance of seven miles, as shown in the plan furnished by the parties, but had ceased to do so since 1943. Sometime in 1955 the Respondent applied to the Regional Transport Authority for sanction of a route between Kodavasal and Koradachery and for grant of a permit to ply a bus on the said route. It is stated that the present appellant intervened and objected to the proposal. As could be gathered from the report made by the Deputy Transport Commissioner State Transport Authorities, to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras, in No. Lr. 33853-E. 2/56, dated 19th October, 1956, this application was rejected after notification of the application under section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Regional Transport Authority under the following resolution dated 16th April, 1956.

“Heard the applicant. This has already been considered on 30th December, 1955 and was not recommended due to Divisional Engineer (High Ways) conditional recommendation and the applicant also agrees with this view now. Hence rejected.”

The Respondent thereupon appealed on 25th May, 1956, to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, in its order, R. No. 24344/A-2/56, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 16th April, 1956 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is now stated that the Regional Transport Authority heard the matter on remand and, once again, rejected the application of the Respondent for the new route, Kodavasal to Koradachery and refused to grant a permit therefor. Apparently, further proceedings in respect of this order of the Regional Transport Authority have not yet terminated. We are not, however, concerned with these pending proceedings in this appeal.

On the 4th of January, 1956, the Appellant before us applied to the Regional Transport Authority for grant of a variation of the route, Tanjore to Kumbakonam via Papanasam into a route, Tanjore to Koradachery via Kumbakonam and Kodavasal and for a permit in respect of his two buses, namely, M.D.O. 1081 and M.D.O. 1100. These two buses were among the 11 buses that were being plied by the Appellant on the route, Tanjore to Kumbakonam via Papanasam. This application appears to have been notified straightway under section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act on the 6th of April, 1956. This notification was however cancelled subsequently and on the 14th March, 1956, the application of the Appellant was notified unde