The Regional Transport Authority is required to consider the relative merits of all the applicants for a route and grant the permit to the person best suited, with preference being given to registered societies if other things are equal.

( 1 ) ALONG with this petition, Miscellaneous Petition No. 482 of 1966 is disposed of, as common questions are raised.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that a stage carriage permit on Burhanpur-Ded-talai route was held by M/s Tirathdas and Brothers. Tirathdas applied for renewal of the permit, though out of time. The petitioner Mohanlal filed an application on 8-21965 for grant of a fresh permit on the said route in lieu of the permit held by tirathdas. The third respondent, Thakur Navalsingh (the petitioner in Misc. Petition no. 482 of 1966) also filed an application on 25-4-1965 for grant of a permit in the vacancy caused because of the failure of Tirathdas to apply In time. The application of the petitioner was published on 2-4-1965 while the application of the third respondent was published on 8-12-1965, after about eight months of the filing thereof. The Regional Transport Authority Indore, took the application of tirathdas alone for consideration in 14-10-1965, though the application of the petitioner, which was filed In lieu of the permit of Tirathdas, was ripe. The application of Tirathdas was dismissed on the ground that It was barred by time. After this, on 18-12-1965, the Regional Transport Authority considered the application of the petitioner and granted the permit to him on the ground that he was the only applicant. The Regional Transport Authority failed to take note that for that very route the third respondent had already filed an application, which was also published on 3-12-1965 and was ripe for consideration, and that no notice was given to the third respondent when the application of the petitioner was considered. In these circumstances, the third respondent filed a revision petition before the State Transport Authority. Gwalior, challenging the order of the regional Transport Authority granting the permit to the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE State Transport Authority, by its order dated 23-7-1965, set aside the grant in favour of the petitioner and remanded the case to the Regional Transport authority with a direction that fresh applications should be invited for the route in question and the permit should be granted on merits. The petitioner as well as the third respondent beine aggrieved by the order of the State Transport Authority, have filed Misc. Petition No. 396 of 1966 and Misc. Petition No. 482 of 1966 respectively.

( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the State Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the grant in favour of the netitioner. while the contention of the third respondent is that the State Transport Authority was in error in directing the Regional Transport Authority to invite fresh applications. On this matter, the petitioner also joins with the third respondent.

( 5 ) SHRI Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the proper remedy for the third respondent was to prefer an appeal against the order of the Regional transport Authority, if he was of the view that he was also a co-applicant for the grant of a permit. He urged that the grant of permit to the petitioner amounted to rejection of the application of the third respondent and as such he should have preferred an appeal. Shri Tankha relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ram Gopal v. Anant Prasad, AIR 1959 SC 851 wherein it was held that where there are two applications in respect of the same permit, one of which is by way of renewal and the other is a fresh application and an order granting a renewal of the permit is made the order amounts, in fact, to a refusal to grant the permit to the person making the fresh application and he would be a person aggrieved within clause (a) of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the fact that an express order refusing the permit is not made cannot operate to his prejudice Though the third respondent had filed an application and though it was published in the gazette the third respondent was not noticed about the hearing of the appli